Reorganising Hexblade

[Rhynear]

I really liked the new Hexblade subclass in the Warlock and Wizards UA this week, however it feels like it should be set up in a different order to prevent dipping so easily and so much for the other Charisma classes and to make it feel like a better organised, more finished subclass.


This ability allows you to use better weapons earlier and allows you to use strength weapons, but the ability to use Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity allows the other Charisma classes to dip it for one level and keep all of their ASI's, removing this would pretty much remove half of the benefit of a dip for the subclass.


This ability is very nice as it allows the Hexblade to melee without being handicapped by your flavour choices, however the extra crit range doesn't particularly fit here and makes it a bit strong so that could be removed, and the bonus damage increasing with proficiency bonus means that a one level dip from another class still gets the scaling on this ability. It could probably be replaced with either "Half your Warlock Level", or with "(A quarter of your Warlock level) +1", with whichever being rounded up or down depending on how strong it is and how strong you want it to be



This ability just doesn't seem to fit this subclass at all. Why do you have a shadow hound? What do weapons have to do with hounds particularly? This just feels like one of the designers really wanted to squeeze this ability in somewhere and here was the best place now that they have, most likely, removed the Shadow Sorcerer. This would be better replaced with the level 14 Master of Hexes ability so that you could use your curse more than once every other fight, even adding that you have to have defeated your enemy before being able to move it, or it could be replaced by the curse moving of the Curse Bringer invocation.



This ability just seems strange. I get the idea in increasing the survivability of a melee Warlock by making it less likely to be hit, but this seems like a really strange way to do it. I think it would probably make it much simpler and more in keeping with game mechanics if this was just Disadvantage for the cursed target when they tried to hit you and advantage for you when you tried to hit them. It would increase their survivability, and also replicates the increased crit range of the old Hexblades Curse



I don't know what to replace this one with except maybe allowing you to place your Hexblades Curse on two or three targets and allowing you to move your curse whenever you want, removing it from the old target in the process.



Blade pact seems a bit weak still compared to Chain and a lot weaker than Tome, I think that this could be fixed by allowing you to create any weapon, to fit with the Moon Bow invocation, and by allowing you to use Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity for to-hit and damage when you create a non-heavy, non-ranged pact weapon with it, eg. weapons that don't have a Feat to go with them. This would mean that Shillelagh, from Pact of the Tome, wasn't the best option for melee Warlocks anymore.

[Deleted]

A class should never take into account multiclassing when being designed.

Multiclassing is an optional rule and if you want to DM a multiclass game then that's on you.

[Douche]

I do agree the "roll a d6 every time you get hit" on Armor of Hexes seems a little needlessly complex, but at the same time it sounds like a fun ability. Rolling above a 4 and being able to go "neh neh neh boo boo! You didn't hit me! hehehe" sounds a lot more fun than the DM just rolling at disadvantage the whole time. Probably on the same tier of tomfoolery as Counterspell.

Other than that, I think it looks like a lot of fun and I'm considering using it.

[Rhynear]

A class should never take into account multiclassing when being designed.

Multiclassing is an optional rule and if you want to DM a multiclass game then that's on you.

Yes Multiclassing is an optional rule, but since it is a rule then the game should be balanced around it, or at least they should let you know what you'd need to do to balance around it. Thats like saying SCAG is an optional book so everything in it should be ridiculously op.

And also that wasn't my only reason for the moving of any of the abilities.

[RipTide]

I agree that hexblade could be a bit better set up so here is what i think.




This ability allows you to use better weapons earlier and allows you to use strength weapons, but the ability to use Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity allows the other Charisma classes to dip it for one level and keep all of their ASI's, removing this would pretty much remove half of the benefit of a dip for the subclass.

Hex warrior is pretty much proficiency and Cha Shillelagh so I don't see any problem giving this for a 1 level dip, you could get the same thing for a 1 level dip in druid (including all but the martial weapon prof).





This ability is very nice as it allows the Hexblade to melee without being handicapped by your flavour choices, however the extra crit range doesn't particularly fit here and makes it a bit strong so that could be removed, and the bonus damage increasing with proficiency bonus means that a one level dip from another class still gets the scaling on this ability. It could probably be replaced with either "Half your Warlock Level", or with "(A quarter of your Warlock level) +1", with whichever being rounded up or down depending on how strong it is and how strong you want it to be


I disagree that the crit range doesn't fit, this is a patron that is literally a weapon, so any bonus to weapon hits is fitting as far as theme goes. As this is right now, I also don't think it is to powerful. It is strictly worse than Champion at 3, which is fitting for a level 1 ability, because it is 1 target for 1 minuet per short rest (so 1 every 2 - 3 combats). Right now this only improves at 14 or if you take an invocation that removes the cha to weapons from hex warrior. If you increase the regularity with which you can use the curse then this could be removed but as is the extra crit range is fine.

The extra damage i do agree should be locked to warlock level, begin able to get a free +6 to damage, even if it is only 1 minute per short rest, is a bit much for 1 level. I would say to keep it in line with what it is make the damage 1/4 your warlock level rounded up + 1. This would follow proficiency perfectly if you stay pure warlock.




This ability just doesn't seem to fit this subclass at all. Why do you have a shadow hound? What do weapons have to do with hounds particularly? This just feels like one of the designers really wanted to squeeze this ability in somewhere and here was the best place now that they have, most likely, removed the Shadow Sorcerer. This would be better replaced with the level 14 Master of Hexes ability so that you could use your curse more than once every other fight, even adding that you have to have defeated your enemy before being able to move it, or it could be replaced by the curse moving of the Curse Bringer invocation.


While I agree the hound is a bit out of place I think the effect is fine. Hexblade level 1 is heavy on the combat bonuses so a nice out of combat option is a good fit here. I wouldn't want to put something like master of hexes here because it just stacks more combat power at the expense of utility and warlock is already lacking utility. It could have been something like a shadow dagger rather than a hound, but the effect is fitting even if the aesthetic is lacking.




This ability just seems strange. I get the idea in increasing the survivability of a melee Warlock by making it less likely to be hit, but this seems like a really strange way to do it. I think it would probably make it much simpler and more in keeping with game mechanics if this was just Disadvantage for the cursed target when they tried to hit you and advantage for you when you tried to hit them. It would increase their survivability, and also replicates the increased crit range of the old Hexblades Curse


This is a bit awkward of a mechanic, but i think just giving a single target disadvantage isn't quite as good as they were going for. The D6 thing gives you a 50-50 chance of not being hit by 1 target, disadvantage is roughly what about a -5, not quite as good most times I think. What this could have been was something like, while your curse is active you exude an aura of menace all attacks against you have disadvantage. Not perfect but a bit better of a defensive option than just single target disadvantage and it gets rid of the awkward D6 mechanic.




I don't know what to replace this one with except maybe allowing you to place your Hexblades Curse on two or three targets and allowing you to move your curse whenever you want, removing it from the old target in the process.


Because I don't think shadow hound should be replaced by this, I think this is fine as is.




Blade pact seems a bit weak still compared to Chain and a lot weaker than Tome, I think that this could be fixed by allowing you to create any weapon, to fit with the Moon Bow invocation, and by allowing you to use Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity for to-hit and damage when you create a non-heavy, non-ranged pact weapon with it, eg. weapons that don't have a Feat to go with them. This would mean that Shillelagh, from Pact of the Tome, wasn't the best option for melee Warlocks anymore.


You seem to not like the hex warrior cha weapon but just want to add it to bladelock. This isn't a bad idea because as is blade locks are kind of locked to hexblade right now, but i doubt they are going to make that drastic of a change to bladelock. What they could do is give a bladelock invocation to add this Cha weapon stuff, but bladelock already has a lot of taxes to make it work so that doesn't feel great, unless they roll in extra attack at 5, so something like, While you wielding a 1 handed pact weapon you can use your cha instead of dex or str for hit and damage, at level 5 when you take the attack action you can attack twice instead of once. This invalidates the existing thirsting blade but forcing bladelocks to get both sucks. If this were added then I would say remove the cha weapons from hex blade completely remove the +crit form the curse, and let then hexblade curse at will from level 1 (1 target at a time only). Replace the level 14 master of hexes with a 1 per short rest uber curse that adds the crit range back in, doubles the damage bonus and causes them to heal a little (1d6 maybe) at the start of each turn.


General thought on new invocations

The Pact of the blade weapon invocation they added, I'm not a big fan of. I know they added the ability to get +1,+2, and +3 to your weapons through invocations but forcing the specific weapon just doesn't feel as good as getting a normal magic weapon. Also the + to weapons just end up being another tax blade-locks have to pay to stay competitive.

They really just should have added a general "smite with warlock slots" invocation and a separate general "awaken weapon" invocation that adds different effect depending on the weapon you are using. This would have taken more work as they would have had to create effects for all different weapons but it would have allowed more variations.

Wow this turned out pretty long so that's all I have to say for now.

[Deleted]

Yes Multiclassing is an optional rule, but since it is a rule then the game should be balanced around it, or at least they should let you know what you'd need to do to balance around it. Thats like saying SCAG is an optional book so everything in it should be ridiculously op.

And also that wasn't my only reason for the moving of any of the abilities.

No.

You are mixing things up.

SCAG replaces class features.

Multiclassing stacks class features together.

They are entirely different situations. Lol.

[MrStabby]

There are a lot of optional rules that the game is clearly designed round. Magic weapons for example. Why would a class ability or spell mention magic weapons unless it was a feature in the game?

Feats for ASIs - the fighter is so clearly uninteresting without feats that i can't help but think that feats were considered when designing the class.

Optional is not the same thing as irrelevant. Nor is it the same thing as desirable or undesirable.

[Deleted]

There are a lot of optional rules that the game is clearly designed round. Magic weapons for example. Why would a class ability or spell mention magic weapons unless it was a feature in the game?

Feats for ASIs - the fighter is so clearly uninteresting without feats that i can't help but think that feats were considered when designing the class.

Optional is not the same thing as irrelevant. Nor is it the same thing as desirable or undesirable.

The spell magic weapon is iconic. Plus they did add monsters that have resistance or immunity to non-magical damage.

They can make references to magic items, but they never give rules for magic weapons. Even the spell doesn't give you a magic item, just temp gives you the ability to simulate magic weapons.

The fighter is based on the design of the 4e Essentials Fighter (almost a direct port) with the look of the 3e fighter.

Like... Feats probably wasn't part of the idea. If they were, their bonus ASI would say "you may pick a bonus feat" instead of leaving it up to the DM.

[MrStabby]

The spell magic weapon is iconic. Plus they did add monsters that have resistance or immunity to non-magical damage.
Yup. This means for this monster spells are a better solution. If every, or nearly every, attack at that level is magical then it is kind of a do nothing ability. It is assumed there is some distinct probability that PCs wont have magic weapons so that the ability can mean something.



They can make references to magic items, but they never give rules for magic weapons. Even the spell doesn't give you a magic item, just temp gives you the ability to simulate magic weapons.
Yup, but if it was assumed that people would have a magic weapon then there is a bunch of words that could be removed I think. That they are there implies that there is an assumption that PCs might not have one.




The fighter is based on the design of the 4e Essentials Fighter (almost a direct port) with the look of the 3e fighter.
Yes, a fighter in this game has some things in common with a fighter in a different game... I think I might be missing your point here




Like... Feats probably wasn't part of the idea. If they were, their bonus ASI would say "you may pick a bonus feat" instead of leaving it up to the DM.
I am not convinced, but you might have a point on this one. I might be reading too much into the class; it could just be poorly designed.

[Rysto]

Guys, can we not let Deleted hijack this thread? The OP wanted to talk about the Hexblade, not multiclassing.

[Rhynear]

If this were added then I would say remove the cha weapons from hex blade completely remove the +crit form the curse, and let then hexblade curse at will from level 1 (1 target at a time only). Replace the level 14 master of hexes with a 1 per short rest uber curse that adds the crit range back in, doubles the damage bonus and causes them to heal a little (1d6 maybe) at the start of each turn.

I like this idea a lot as it allows you to use your signature class ability more often and at level 14 it lines up well with the other high level once per day abilities that most classes get, while still allowing you to use your main ability most of the time.



General thought on new invocations

The Pact of the blade weapon invocation they added, I'm not a big fan of. I know they added the ability to get +1,+2, and +3 to your weapons through invocations but forcing the specific weapon just doesn't feel as good as getting a normal magic weapon. Also the + to weapons just end up being another tax blade-locks have to pay to stay competitive.

They really just should have added a general "smite with warlock slots" invocation and a separate general "awaken weapon" invocation that adds different effect depending on the weapon you are using. This would have taken more work as they would have had to create effects for all different weapons but it would have allowed more variations.

I agree with you on this although if you get given a magic weapon by your DM then you can forgo the +X invocations in favour of something else, but it may also lead your DM to believe that you don't need a magic weapon because you have the invocations.



Wow this turned out pretty long so that's all I have to say for now.

I'd rather have more discussion than less discussion.

[Deleted]

Yup. This means for this monster spells are a better solution. If every, or nearly every, attack at that level is magical then it is kind of a do nothing ability. It is assumed there is some distinct probability that PCs wont have magic weapons so that the ability can mean something.


Yup, but if it was assumed that people would have a magic weapon then there is a bunch of words that could be removed I think. That they are there implies that there is an assumption that PCs might not have one.



Yes, a fighter in this game has some things in common with a fighter in a different game... I think I might be missing your point here



I am not convinced, but you might have a point on this one. I might be reading too much into the class; it could just be poorly designed.

The game assumes you don't have magic weapons, which is why CRs are calculated with the idea that you don't have a magic weapon. If the game assumed you had a magic weapon then a monster's CR wouldn't take into the resistances (versus non-magical damage) because... You would have a magic weapon and it wouldn't matter.

The only classes that have references to magic weapons is magic classes (or subclasses). Do note that the monk is not a martial class, it is a magic class as per the PHB entry on the Monk/Ki.

Basically in 3.5 and 4e Essentials the Fighter is made very simple (for 3.5 just take the PHB as that is all that was made when the fighter was made) and straight forward striker. In 3.5... It wasn't even good at that all that well compared to others. However in 4e Essentials, the Fighter (Slayer) was made to be a good striker that was simple to use.

The point is that the 5e class is designed with the purpose of being a simple to use striker. Feats are not a class option and the class options (that aren't magic) aren't all that special or anything to look twice at (menacing strike is nice but quickly looses steam as it never grows into something more).

4e Essentials was lead and designed by Mearles, JC was on his team. Their simplistic fighter made its way over to 5e.

The Fighter has specific design choices, as does the game itself, that show feats were added as almost an after thought.

Edit===

I don't hate the idea of a simple fighter, I hate the idea that the simple fighter must be mundane.


Edit===


Guys, can we not let Deleted hijack this thread? The OP wanted to talk about the Hexblade, not multiclassing.

The point of the thread came about because of multiclassing issues with the UA Warlock sooo don't try to say I'm hijacking things just because you don't agree with my opinions. Please don't try to troll me or push my buttons, I haven't done a thing to you.

For reference.


I really liked the new Hexblade subclass in the Warlock and Wizards UA this week, however it feels like it should be set up in a different order to prevent dipping so easily and so much for the other Charisma classes and to make it feel like a better organised, more finished subclass.

Last I heard, dipping is multiclassing.

[Foxhound438]

My fix would be to remove charisma to damage from the first level ability and move that to 6th; up to that point the hexblade can get away with +2 dex for medium armor and a rapier, and then they get a nice boost to their +4 charisma at 6th; after that the first ability is purely supporting proficiency, which are often given alongside a more specific ability (in this case the curse, in the case of many cleric domains they get proficiency alongside their L1 feature). This should make a fair level 1 for them.

The shadow hound probably could get cut entirely, and instead have at 6th level charisma to melee attack+damage, plus maybe a slight improvement to the curse (maybe delay the prof to damage to here).

Pushing 2 things out to 6th decreases the front-loadedness of the class, and as most posts I've seen suggest, not many people would miss the existing 6th level feature.



To break down how it would be if I were to determine the changes:

L1: supporting proficiency, 1/SR ability to increase crit range against one thing and gain HP after target death.

L6: charisma to attack and damage to one handed or versatile melee weapons; curse now applies a damage boost, preferably in the form of (WL/4)+1, rounded up- gives the same damage to a pure warlock at every point, but does not continue scaling for multiclassed cases.

L10: armor of hexes; preferably given some mechanical change to make it less clunky. I feel like resistance to damage from the cursed target would accomplish the same goal while being a lot smoother in play, rather than having to roll umpteen-d6 one at a time when you're getting attacked by a marileth or something.

L14: always available curse.

[Foxhound438]

Guys, can we not let Deleted hijack this thread? The OP wanted to talk about the Hexblade, not multiclassing.

we kind of have to talk about multiclassing cases. If we don't, when this gets a final release and no one thought to put into the survey that it's too front loaded, it will become massively prolific (more than it already is) to dip 3 levels of warlock on everything or else be massively less effective in battle.

[Joe the Rat]

To break down how it would be if I were to determine the changes:

L1: supporting proficiency, 1/SR ability to increase crit range against one thing and gain HP after target death.

L6: charisma to attack and damage to one handed or versatile melee weapons; curse now applies a damage boost, preferably in the form of (WL/4)+1, rounded up- gives the same damage to a pure warlock at every point, but does not continue scaling for multiclassed cases.

L10: armor of hexes; preferably given some mechanical change to make it less clunky. I feel like resistance to damage from the cursed target would accomplish the same goal while being a lot smoother in play, rather than having to roll umpteen-d6 one at a time when you're getting attacked by a marileth or something.

L14: always available curse.I'm still inclined to leave charisma at 1. At level 6, you are fairly well past "dip" levels, so leaving it on proficiency should be okay.
The idea of armor of hexes is that it is a 50% miss that can stack with disadvantage - sort of an always-on single mirror image. If you wanted to simplify the roll, you could have it be based on the die result - if the number on the d20 is odd, it's a miss. Strange and esoteric, but I think that adds a bit of fun (and odd numbers avoids any conflicting interpretations of auto-hit on 20).

[ZiddyT]

I'm still inclined to leave charisma at 1. At level 6, you are fairly well past "dip" levels, so leaving it on proficiency should be okay.
The idea of armor of hexes is that it is a 50% miss that can stack with disadvantage - sort of an always-on single mirror image. If you wanted to simplify the roll, you could have it be based on the die result - if the number on the d20 is odd, it's a miss. Strange and esoteric, but I think that adds a bit of fun (and odd numbers avoids any conflicting interpretations of auto-hit on 20).

Yeah, level 6 is ridiculous. WIS shillelagh is available at 1, and cha is currently at 3. I'm not sure why a dedicated melee attacker would get shafted in actually using their proper melee attack stat longer than pure casters are. Are we really that afraid of a bard having +5 instead of +3 to hit with his whole two attacks (that have to be one-handed and can't abuse the power-feats)? Meanwhile delaying his caster progression, extra attack, bardic die and magical secrets by a level?

I could understand if it was additional cha to damage cheese like undying light, but I don't get the fearmongering for a replacement ability.

[jas61292]

Honestly, I would get rid of Cha for attack completely. Both because it is stupid to make it so mandatory a dip, but also, well, because it is just stupid in general. As a dip, this becomes golden for valor bards and paladins, especially sword and board paladins. It would be foolish not to take it. Now, that is partially because being less MAD is also good, and partially because this is such a tiny investment. And a level of Warlock, especially this hexblade, gives plenty of other good stuff as well.

What's more, from a balance perspective, Gish classes are always forced to use a physical ability to attack, unless they specifically invest multiple levels into changing that. Sure, a Tomelock could get Shillelagh, but then they need to grab 5 levels in another class to get extra attack, which is far more important. Honestly, the fact is, martial characters use strength or dex. Trying to make a martial character that innately doesn't run on one of those is not good game balance. I mean, the only characters to easily get a way to use a mental stat for martial attacks are those who are not martial characters themselves. And while a one level dip in Druid or Nature Cleric can get you Wis for attack, this is not that beneficial for any wisdom based character, as Rangers and Monks rely equally on Wis and Dex anyways, and Clerics and Druids do not get extra attack. Mental stats are simply not the "proper" stat for a martial character to be using, as someone above implied, and it should always require investment. Dipping one level to completely eliminate the need for an otherwise main stat, as the Paladin could do here, is unprecedented, and bad balance.

But, as I said, this is not my only complaint with this ability. It is also just stupid. When it comes to Shillelagh, using Wis or Cha for attack is just a representation of using your magic to attack, since you cast a spell. But this is not some special magical ability. As is, you can just pick up a sword and start fighting with it using... your force of personality? Like... that is just dumb.

If I were to change something to make this kind of thing still an option, it would be to make a Pact of the Blade invocation that you can take at level 3, which would allow you to do this specifically with your magical pact weapon. Probably with some other small bonus as well. This would allow you to still get this ability as an option, but it would not be the default, and would require some investment for other classes. The same amount of investment that they currently require.

[rollingForInit]

A class should never take into account multiclassing when being designed.

Multiclassing is an optional rule and if you want to DM a multiclass game then that's on you.

It should always be taken into account, because it's much easier to design a class with some thought on how it'll work multiclassed, so it isn't very broken, or has such awesome synergy that it becomes an multiclass tax for very common and everyday builds. It's much easier to take it into account while designing the class, than to have 20 pages of multiclass rules that make exceptions for it. Who'd want to read a multiclass section full of "If you are a Paladin and multiclass into Warlock and pick the Hexblade, you cannot use Charisma for weapon attacks until level 5", and so on. But that's what would be needed if no consideration was given at all to how classes mix together because you'd end up with ridiculously broken builds.

It also makes it much easier for DM's, because it's very easy to just allow multiclassing across the board. It'd lead to more conflicts if some combinations were so broken that DM's would have to regularly say stuff like "Yes, you can multiclass into Warlock, but not into the Fiend Pact even though it's official" or "Yes, you can dip into Sorcerer, but not if you're a Paladin because that just gets bonkers".

Outside of UA, 5e doesn't really have any truly game-breaking builds. There are multiclass combinations that are really good, but nothing compared to what existed in 3.X where rules just go out the window. That wouldn't be the case if they had just added multiclassing as an afterthought. And multiclassing may be officially optional, but in practise most games allow it.

[Deleted]

It should always be taken into account, because it's much easier to design a class with some thought on how it'll work multiclassed, so it isn't very broken, or has such awesome synergy that it becomes an multiclass tax for very common and everyday builds. It's much easier to take it into account while designing the class, than to have 20 pages of multiclass rules that make exceptions for it. Who'd want to read a multiclass section full of "If you are a Paladin and multiclass into Warlock and pick the Hexblade, you cannot use Charisma for weapon attacks until level 5", and so on. But that's what would be needed if no consideration was given at all to how classes mix together because you'd end up with ridiculously broken builds.

It also makes it much easier for DM's, because it's very easy to just allow multiclassing across the board. It'd lead to more conflicts if some combinations were so broken that DM's would have to regularly say stuff like "Yes, you can multiclass into Warlock, but not into the Fiend Pact even though it's official" or "Yes, you can dip into Sorcerer, but not if you're a Paladin because that just gets bonkers".

Outside of UA, 5e doesn't really have any truly game-breaking builds. There are multiclass combinations that are really good, but nothing compared to what existed in 3.X where rules just go out the window. That wouldn't be the case if they had just added multiclassing as an afterthought. And multiclassing may be officially optional, but in practise most games allow it.

If you take into account multiclassing you will make classes weaker early on and less likely to be taken by new or experienced players.

Plus, from what I can see, absolutely NO class in the PHB takes into account multiclassing when they created each individual class.

If you go forward and start taking multiclassing into consideration you are hurting any designs by letting other classes hold it back.

Some notable classes that have huge dip levels...


Barbarian: Rage @ 1, reckless attack @ 2, and Path @ 3.

Cleric: Domain @ 1 (chalk full of profs and abilities), channel divinity and divine domain feature @ 2.

Rogue: Expertise @ 1, Cunning Action @ 2.

Fighter: Fighting Style @ 1, Action Surge @ 2

Warlock: Diptastic 1 - 3

Wizard: Arcane Tradition (Diviner or Blade are the main ones but I've seen other dips), low level spells from the best list...

But yeah, let's make sure anything new comes out is ok with a MC and doesn't cause a swell in power for a one, two, or three level dip...

If you did that you would have the Ranger Issue which gets nothing at 1, a tiny bit at 2, and finally becomes a class of its own at 3. Not that this is why the PHB ranger sucks at level one, but it can be the end result.


Edit===

Order of class design

1: Thematic
2: Balance
3: Is it still thematic?
4: Were're done here.

[Foxhound438]

Yeah, level 6 is ridiculous. WIS shillelagh is available at 1, and cha is currently at 3.

This is fair, and I didn't really take that into account when I was putting that together. Char to attacks and damage at 1 it is, then.

[Steampunkette]

Armor and weapon proficiencies at 1 are basically irrelevant.

Even if someone is gonna dip for 1 level of Hexblade, their class probably already gives them as much or better, already.

Charisma to weapon attacks -is- pretty amazing... but is it REALLY that big a thing?

Sure. Valor Bards and Paladins would benefit from it by a point or two of attack/damage and being slightly less MAD than before. But is 2 point higher Charisma instead of 2 point higher Dex or Strength really going to make that much of a difference?

Most Paladin spells have no saves. They just "Do the thing". A few of their abilities have saves, but 1-2 point of spell save on a handful of things isn't going to make those very minor abilities that much powerful.

And the bard, while using high Charisma, is still going to want a high dex for saving throws and skill checks. They're probably not going to get ANYTHING out of Charisma to Weapon damage except maybe the ability to do an extra point of damage if they're willing to let their skills and dex saves languish just a bit.

The curse itself is nice? But not actually all that powerful, compared to Hex, Bestow Curse, or something like Barbarian Rage.

Honestly? The Charisma to Attack/Damage feels, to me, right around the power level of Fighting Styles.

[Foxhound438]

Sure. Valor Bards and Paladins would benefit from it by a point or two of attack/damage and being slightly less MAD than before. But is 2 point higher Charisma instead of 2 point higher Dex or Strength really going to make that much of a difference?

It's a much bigger deal when you frame it as "you now get 2 extra feats".

No, I don't really think that's all that huge when you could already do it now by going 4 warlock for tomelock and the ASI, but it's a bit more than just a +1 or +2 bonus.

[MrStabby]

Honestly? The Charisma to Attack/Damage feels, to me, right around the power level of Fighting Styles.

Well it lets you turn strength and dex into dump stats. This is a big deal. Sure you would have probably dumped one of them anyway but this way you can have great constitution instead or if multiclassing is your thing you can be a solid cleric warlock as wisdom is more affordable.

Dwarf for armour, dump Str and Dex - high Cha and Con so solid attack stat and loads of HP. Yeah, I think it enables some seriously great stuff.

[Deleted]

Well it lets you turn strength and dex into dump stats. This is a big deal. Sure you would have probably dumped one of them anyway but this way you can have great constitution instead or if multiclassing is your thing you can be a solid cleric warlock as wisdom is more affordable.

Dwarf for armour, dump Str and Dex - high Cha and Con so solid attack stat and loads of HP. Yeah, I think it enables some seriously great stuff.

But nothing broken or unbalanced.

Especially since a lot of people don't want to play dwarfs :p

But seriously, even with all the power you can gain, you will have enough weaknesses that you won't be left unchecked.

Power unbalances don't really see play until probably level 5 - 8 when spells really get crazy and martials stop growing. At that point it wouldn't be because the caster's character did anything wrong.

[ZiddyT]

Well it lets you turn strength and dex into dump stats. This is a big deal. Sure you would have probably dumped one of them anyway but this way you can have great constitution instead or if multiclassing is your thing you can be a solid cleric warlock as wisdom is more affordable.

Dwarf for armour, dump Str and Dex - high Cha and Con so solid attack stat and loads of HP. Yeah, I think it enables some seriously great stuff.

I don't understand why people aren't factoring in opportunity cost.

A paladin shouldn't be dumping STR in the first place, so they're still going to be as MAD as anyone else, they're just changing which stat is their primary. How much use do you *really* get out of that? How many saves is the paladin forcing? Are they going to be a better face than someone focusing on that? No. The only real advantage is your aura gets slightly better slightly sooner.

If you're going dwarf solely to dump str, then realize you're losing out on half-elf with its ridiculous +2 cha and +1/+1 (or a +2 cha race in general), or a bonus feat. Congratulations, you're starting with a only +2 modifier in your attack/casting stat, and now you've delayed all your paladin abilities by a level, including extra attack.

[Steampunkette]

It's a much bigger deal when you frame it as "you now get 2 extra feats".

No, I don't really think that's all that huge when you could already do it now by going 4 warlock for tomelock and the ASI, but it's a bit more than just a +1 or +2 bonus.

Both Multiclassing and Feats are optional rules systems, not standard or mandatory... That said, sure it's two . Or some Dex, Str, or Mental stats for better physical skills and/or initiative or mental skills.

Most people who are just settling down at the table aren't going to be digging through every available option to create the best and most powerful character possible. They'll make a good one which does what they're after that's fairly well rounded and run with it.

Maybe instead of focusing on nerfing things to hell and back and taking away the unique or interesting things some of these classes have, because someone COULD combine them in a fairly powerful if not outright broken way, we should focus on curtailing powergaming at our tables.


Well it lets you turn strength and dex into dump stats. This is a big deal. Sure you would have probably dumped one of them anyway but this way you can have great constitution instead or if multiclassing is your thing you can be a solid cleric warlock as wisdom is more affordable.

Dwarf for armour, dump Str and Dex - high Cha and Con so solid attack stat and loads of HP. Yeah, I think it enables some seriously great stuff.

It really doesn't let you dump Str or Dex. Oh, sure. You can dump Dex if you're a Paladin, always could, but you're still gonna need enough Str to wear your heavy armor and give you a decent chance of resisting all the pushing you're gonna deal with.

And the Valor Bard can dump Strength, like they always could, but they're still gonna need Dex for initiative, skills, and saves.

So I think there's a bit of an exaggeration being made to emphasize how strong it is, but that emphasis goes a bit too far.

[Rhaegar14]

Yeah, they still can't entirely dump both Strength and Dexterity with Charisma to attacks and damage, people.

A Hexblade is still gonna need either 14 Dexterity to get the most out of medium armor, or if they want to invest a half-feat in it, 15 Strength to wear plate mail without a significant speed penalty. A 14 is not a primary stat, but it's certainly not a dump stat. Nothing about dipping it in a multiclass build changes that.

Not to mention, as Steampunkette pointed out, that it's still good practice to have either a decent bonus to Acrobatics or Athletics.

[Deleted]

I don't understand why people aren't factoring in opportunity cost.

A paladin shouldn't be dumping STR in the first place, so they're still going to be as MAD as anyone else, they're just changing which stat is their primary. How much use do you *really* get out of that? How many saves is the paladin forcing? Are they going to be a better face than someone focusing on that? No. The only real advantage is your aura gets slightly better slightly sooner.

If you're going dwarf solely to dump str, then realize you're losing out on half-elf with its ridiculous +2 cha and +1/+1 (or a +2 cha race in general), or a bonus feat. Congratulations, you're starting with a only +2 modifier in your attack/casting stat, and now you've delayed all your paladin abilities by a level, including extra attack.

Eh, the difference between +2 and +3 won't be felt in actual play. The d20 is so much of your to hit/if an enemy saves that I wouldn't be too worried about it.

Though the slower progression will definitely be felt! So I would only MC if that MC is what makes my character who I want my character to be.

It is rather easy to do that, to make everything after level 2 "gravy".

[Rysto]

How many saves is the paladin forcing?

The paladin isn't forcing a lot of saves because he can't afford to pump CHA in preference of STR.

[Deleted]

The paladin isn't forcing a lot of saves because he can't afford to pump CHA in preference of STR.

Maaaan, if only enemy saves were absolutely terrible!

A majority of play is level 1 - 8, enemy saves are terrible. Paladins don't need full charisma to have a good Save DC.

Things don't have to be optimized to be useful or worth it.

[ZiddyT]

...Sure. Paladins are just itching to use those amazing control spells they have. All the ones that play exclusively vengeance just waiting until they can finally use Hold Person at... level 5.

[Rhaegar14]

At the risk of playing both sides of the argument, the real reason a Paladin would pump their Charisma is to improve Aura of Protection. It's got nothing to do with their mediocre spells.

[Steampunkette]

I still want a Curse-Focused pact boon.

Something that lets you throw Hex on multiple targets, or give people disadvantage on damage, or something else fun like that.

The Hexblade would work with that -super- well for a curse-centric moderately armored Eldritch Blaster.

[Rysto]

...Sure. Paladins are just itching to use those amazing control spells they have. All the ones that play exclusively vengeance just waiting until they can finally use Hold Person at... level 5.

Many smite spells offer a save to avoid nasty control effects (I'll admit that I had also thought that the save affected damage as well, but I was completely wrong about that)

[Deleted]

At the risk of playing both sides of the argument, the real reason a Paladin would pump their Charisma is to improve Aura of Protection. It's got nothing to do with their mediocre spells.

Compel Duel,Thunderous Smite, and Banishing Smite are the three main Paladin spells I would say is the spells you have a high Cha for. But yes, the Aura is the primary reason and is worth so much more than their spells.

[Vogonjeltz]

This ability just doesn't seem to fit this subclass at all. Why do you have a shadow hound?

The Hexblade originated as a class in 3.5's Complete Warrior; This was one of their unique (iconic) spells.

Basically everything the subclass is doing is a recreation of something from the class. The curse (that it gets better as the Hexblade levels), the probability armor, the hound, it's all classic Hexblade.

I'd have thought it would be a Fighter archetype, but I think with the 1st level benefits of getting better armor it works just fine on Warlock.

Would not change a thing right now.

[Rhaegar14]

Compel Duel,Thunderous Smite, and Banishing Smite are the three main Paladin spells I would say is the spells you have a high Cha for. But yes, the Aura is the primary reason and is worth so much more than their spells.

As somebody who is playing a Paladin in a 5e home game, I find Compelled Duel to be near-useless, primarily because of the stipulation that none of your allies can attack the target. However, my Paladin also has Sentinel, which makes Compelled Duel extremely redundant.

I'd add regular Banishment to your list, and maybe Dispel Magic and Destructive Wave (you do need a fair number of targets for its damage to beat your standard attack routine, but it's a large AoE that doesn't hit any of your allies). However, I'd point out that all of those spells (except Destructive Wave and Dispel Magic) are competing with buffs for your concentration, and most of the Oaths have better buffs than control spells.

The Channel Divinities also scale off your Charisma if they scale at all, and some of those are strong depending on what you see a lot of in your campaign. In ours, for example, we fight a lot of fiends and undead, so Turn the Unholy is actually an extremely powerful ability because it actually comes up fairly often.

But again, we're mostly in agreement: all that is icing on the cake for the bonus from Aura of Protection.


The Hexblade originated as a class in 3.5's Complete Warrior; This was one of their unique (iconic) spells.

Basically everything the subclass is doing is a recreation of something from the class. The curse (that it gets better as the Hexblade levels), the probability armor, the hound, it's all classic Hexblade.

I'd have thought it would be a Fighter archetype, but I think with the 1st level benefits of getting better armor it works just fine on Warlock.

Would not change a thing right now.

It's a little strong on the whole. Shadow Hound being terrible works as a balancing factor in a messed up sort of way, as there are very few archetypes in this game that you look at and go "I like every feature this gives me." However, the ability to ignore half and three quarters cover on a melee-focused character is highly situational at best. The only change I might make to it is to give the Hexblade advantage on Intimidate checks against the target of their Shadow Hound (as I've said in another thread), as that gives it something that's relevant outside combat and makes the ability less situational without making them any stronger in combat.

I don't really like Armor of Hexes from an overall game design standpoint. That goes from "Oh, cool" to "holy crap" as soon as the Curse becomes usable at-will (though that's somewhat true of the entire archetype), and much more importantly I'm not sure the return of flat miss chances from 3.5e is a good precedent to set.

[Deleted]

As somebody who is playing a Paladin in a 5e home game, I find Compelled Duel to be near-useless, primarily because of the stipulation that none of your allies can attack the target. However, my Paladin also has Sentinel, which makes Compelled Duel extremely redundant.

I'd add regular Banishment to your list, and maybe Dispel Magic and Destructive Wave (you do need a fair number of targets for its damage to beat your standard attack routine, but it's a large AoE that doesn't hit any of your allies). However, I'd point out that all of those spells (except Destructive Wave and Dispel Magic) are competing with buffs for your concentration, and most of the Oaths have better buffs than control spells.

The Channel Divinities also scale off your Charisma if they scale at all, and some of those are strong depending on what you see a lot of in your campaign. In ours, for example, we fight a lot of fiends and undead, so Turn the Unholy is actually an extremely powerful ability because it actually comes up fairly often.

But again, we're mostly in agreement: all that is icing on the cake for the bonus from Aura of Protection.



I've found Compel Duel as a great way to control an enemy. While your allies deal with minions/puzzles you can get the boss focused on you. Sure it can ignore it, but on a bruiser, it is awesome.

Leave the Dispel/Banishment to the full casters who have the spell known numbers to keep it on stand by. I would rather have other spells known. Not bad options, but your allies get them faster and you will be playing second fiddle.

[ZiddyT]

As somebody who is playing a Paladin in a 5e home game, I find Compelled Duel to be near-useless, primarily because of the stipulation that none of your allies can attack the target. However, my Paladin also has Sentinel, which makes Compelled Duel extremely redundant.

I'd add regular Banishment to your list, and maybe Dispel Magic and Destructive Wave (you do need a fair number of targets for its damage to beat your standard attack routine, but it's a large AoE that doesn't hit any of your allies). However, I'd point out that all of those spells (except Destructive Wave and Dispel Magic) are competing with buffs for your concentration, and most of the Oaths have better buffs than control spells.

The Channel Divinities also scale off your Charisma if they scale at all, and some of those are strong depending on what you see a lot of in your campaign. In ours, for example, we fight a lot of fiends and undead, so Turn the Unholy is actually an extremely powerful ability because it actually comes up fairly often.

But again, we're mostly in agreement: all that is icing on the cake for the bonus from Aura of Protection.



It's a little strong on the whole. Shadow Hound being terrible works as a balancing factor in a messed up sort of way, as there are very few archetypes in this game that you look at and go "I like every feature this gives me." However, the ability to ignore half and three quarters cover on a melee-focused character is highly situational at best. The only change I might make to it is to give the Hexblade advantage on Intimidate checks against the target of their Shadow Hound (as I've said in another thread), as that gives it something that's relevant outside combat and makes the ability less situational without making them any stronger in combat.

I don't really like Armor of Hexes from an overall game design standpoint. That goes from "Oh, cool" to "holy crap" as soon as the Curse becomes usable at-will (though that's somewhat true of the entire archetype), and much more importantly I'm not sure the return of flat miss chances from 3.5e is a good precedent to set.

Yeah, the real gravy is the aura (mentioned before). Even when it comes to things like Banishment and Destructive Wave, you're getting those after a handful of ASIs because of half-caster progression (and of course, Smites are super situational, and you'd probably appreciate the additional divine smite damage in general.) I really wouldn't bother with the MC as a pure paladin if only to not delay feature progression.

If you really want cheese, then talk about sorcadin, especially with stone sorcerer. Now you get actually amazing spells (but again delayed heavily by MC), ridiculous martial ability and only need CHA and CON. Bards and Paladins with CHA focus aren't even going to approach unbalancing a game, but sorcadin only got better. I don't think you can gimp classes and make them not terrible to play at early levels though just because you can munchkin several dips. That should just be adjudicated by DM Fiat.

I'm all for keeping strong bonuses like undying light cha to damage out of level 1, but simple mods like this? I really couldn't care less.

[Lawful Good]

Especially since a lot of people don't want to play dwarfs :p


As a bigoted dwarf racist, I can confirm this.

[Deleted]

As a bigoted dwarf racist, I can confirm this.

As someone who can't grow a beard, thanks to genetics, so I either don't play dwarfs or play a beardless dwarf which isn't a dwarf (by dwarf sublaw 1.0.11D)

[Foxhound438]

How many saves is the paladin forcing?.

wrathful smite? ensnaring strike? blinding smite? command? all of those ar incredibly powerful when the enemy fails their saves.

[Steampunkette]

It's a little strong on the whole. Shadow Hound being terrible works as a balancing factor in a messed up sort of way, as there are very few archetypes in this game that you look at and go "I like every feature this gives me." However, the ability to ignore half and three quarters cover on a melee-focused character is highly situational at best. The only change I might make to it is to give the Hexblade advantage on Intimidate checks against the target of their Shadow Hound (as I've said in another thread), as that gives it something that's relevant outside combat and makes the ability less situational without making them any stronger in combat.

I don't really like Armor of Hexes from an overall game design standpoint. That goes from "Oh, cool" to "holy crap" as soon as the Curse becomes usable at-will (though that's somewhat true of the entire archetype), and much more importantly I'm not sure the return of flat miss chances from 3.5e is a good precedent to set.

Worth noting:

None of the Hexblade Abilities require Melee Attacks. They require attacks... but not melee. So you could make a Hexblade Warlock wearing medium armor and using Pact of the Tome or Chain and focus on the character being a ranged damage dealer with some nice melee-options if the occasion arises.

And if you do, you don't need Spell Sniper as a feat with the Hexblade. Just hit the target with the Hound and follow it up with Eldritch Blasts that ignore cover. Grab Eldritch Spear for range. 19-20 on a crit at range, the ability to dodge attacks from your target, and Medium armor? Tough Blaster.

[deathadder99]

No one's mentioned either that the real offender (Paladin) - NEEDS 13 str to multiclass. That's in and of itself a reasonable investment. I don't think it's particularly broken because any multiclass that tries to get it ends up being gimped in some way (in Point Buy at least). You need 13 Str for multiclass, 15 Str for plate unless you're going Dorf, in which case you don't get 16 Cha at level 1 anyway. Valor bard isn't strong enough in melee to cause issues.

[Vaz]

A class should never take into account multiclassing when being designed.

Multiclassing is an optional rule and if you want to DM a multiclass game then that's on you.

Naah mate.

[Sception]

Feats and multiclassing may be optional, but they are options that interact directly with classes, and class design needs to take the possibility that they may be in effect into account. Classes need to be designed to work and be fun and at least nominally balanced both for the case of no-feats, no-multiclassing AND for the case of yes-feats and yes-multiclassing. A more modular system requires, demands even, more work on the part of the designers, it doesn't justify or excuse less.

If classes, multiclassing, and feats are designed without regard to each other, and as a result the game breaks when they're all included, then those options stop being real options to begin with, and DMs are left with fewer (working) tools to use in their games, not more.

[Deleted]

Feats and multiclassing may be optional, but they are options that interact directly with classes, and class design needs to take the possibility that they may be in effect into account. Classes need to be designed to work and be fun and at least nominally balanced both for the case of no-feats, no-multiclassing AND for the case of yes-feats and yes-multiclassing. A more modular system requires, demands even, more work on the part of the designers, it doesn't justify or excuse less.

If classes, multiclassing, and feats are designed without regard to each other, and as a result the game breaks when they're all included, then those options stop being real options to begin with, and DMs are left with fewer (working) tools to use in their games, not more.

Not really.

The way things seem to have been designed is that the classes were made and then feats (and multiclassing) was placed next.

Feats need to be changed based on what classes there are. They even talked about how they didn't want Tavern Bralwer stepping on the monks toes, thus the Monk came first.

So you don't shape your class based on existing or going to be existing feats. You make anbalanced class and then go back and change any feats that seem off.

Multiclassing is just a ham fisted attempt to have a multiclassing system in the game that takea the least amount of time to impliment.

If MC and Feats were taken into account when the Fighter and Rogue was designed.... I don't think Fighters would have gotten so many attacks and Rogue's sneak attack would have been a bit more limited.

So if you design anything with these two systems in thought, you are limiting what you are designing to a much higher degree than what the PHB stuff was. Which means you will unbalance or make choices that delays what you will get.

[Sception]

They made the decision to delay tavern brawler until after monk was designed *so that they could withing the same game*. That doesn't work for new classes in relation to feats already designed. That's why modular design requires more work going forward. Monk and tavern brawler are designed in a way that both could exist in a game, or just one, or neither. It doesn't matter which was designed first, the point is they needed to take each other into account. A new class can't then be introduced later that interacts poorly with tavern brawler because tavern brawler already exists, much as a new feat can't be made that is broken on a monk, because monk already exists.

Same with mutliclassing. Archetypes are pushed to level 3 in large part so that they can function alongside multiclassing. The hexblade's cha-to-attack is out of line with that. Even more frustrating, the attacking-with-cha option is something that only other classes dipping into hexblade can even reasonably use, and not hexblades themselves, because essential hexblade functionality is locked up in the exclusively-strength-attacking Curse Bringer (the hexblade's mechanical gimmickry is too tied up in the hex for the only available ability to transfer it to a secondary target to be considered optional, and that's before you even consider how much of the damage potential is locked up in the smite option).

[Deleted]

They made the decision to delay tavern brawler until after monk was designed *so that they could withing the same game*. That doesn't work for new classes in relation to feats already designed. That's why modular design requires more work going forward. Monk and tavern brawler are designed in a way that both could exist in a game, or just one, or neither. It doesn't matter which was designed first, the point is they needed to take each other into account. A new class can't then be introduced later that interacts poorly with tavern brawler because tavern brawler already exists, much as a new feat can't be made that is broken on a monk, because monk already exists.

Same with mutliclassing. Archetypes are pushed to level 3 in large part so that they can function alongside multiclassing. The hexblade's cha-to-attack is out of line with that. Even more frustrating, the attacking-with-cha option is something that only other classes dipping into hexblade can even reasonably use, and not hexblades themselves, because essential hexblade functionality is locked up in the exclusively-strength-attacking Curse Bringer (the hexblade's mechanical gimmickry is too tied up in the hex for the only available ability to transfer it to a secondary target to be considered optional, and that's before you even consider how much of the damage potential is locked up in the smite option).

Funny, I'm pretty sure the Cleric and Druid can get Wis to attack and damage at level 1...

Or any variant human...

Yeah, no, Cha to attack and damage is right in line with the game without thinking about feats or multiclassing.

It's almost like they took thematic and single class balance (no feat) into account when making these classes!

They made tavern brawler second so they could make the Monk Thematic and Single class balanced (no feat).

Hell, feats aren't even balanced with regards to classes either so I don't even know if they looked at the classes except for specific instances.

[Sception]

Making classes before feats is a trick that only works once. Feats already exists. You can't design later classes before feats that already exist without a time machine.

[jas61292]

Funny, I'm pretty sure the Cleric and Druid can get Wis to attack and damage at level 1...

Or any variant human...

Funny, I'm pretty sure clerics and druids are not martial characters who get extra attack without 5 levels of multiclassing. And I'm also pretty sure that no other class that runs on wisdom (monk or ranger) gains any significant benefit by dipping for one level to get wisdom based attacks, as both significantly rely on dexterity anyways.

It's almost like it was balanced that way.

[Asmotherion]

My overall opinion on Hex Warior (first attribute of the Hexblade) is very possitive. It's both in-context, and prevents all Cha casters who want to become melee casters from dipping Warlock 3 for Tome-Shillelegh. It also works well for Dip variety, as, in the currest game, if someone wanted tome-shillelagh, he could grab Agonising+Repelling blast, to become an excelent blaster in the process. The problem with that was that, Eldritch Blasters needed next to no dedication, at least from Cha casters, and especially Melee Casters. I like the fact that now they have the option not to get invocations, as they no longer overshadow those that do so.

An other reason is the fact it brings more game balance instead of breaking it, as Wis casters already could dip Druid 1 to get Shillelagh, wile Wizard Bladesinger dips could help Int Casters (Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster). What would be interesting to see is limiting this abiliy more on variety; maybe only on non-martial weapons, or only finess weapons would both be interesting limitations. It could also be bonded-weapons only, which would oppen up interesting Eldritch Knight Fightlock multiclasses.

At the same time, wile it does allow you to neglect STR on melee warlocks, the divine smite-like Invocation option clearly gives you a good reason not to, as it was designed in order not to work with Hex Warior. Good thinking.

Hexblade's curse wile a very nice mechanic, is a once per short rest ability only, and at level 14 (a level rarelly reached in regular campains), it sudently becomes an at-will ability. What I'd like to see is this gradually become better as you level up. I can think of 3 ways; two of them allow Warlock dips to profit of it, 1 does not. The first option is to give uses equal to proficiency bonus per short rest. The second is to have applying it consume a Spell Slot. The 3rd and most balanced imo is, after the first free use (per short rest), have it consume a Warlock Spell Slot specifically; This prevents it scaling without Warlock dedication, and still be something relevant instead of a once per short rest ability. I like the fact it scales with Hex (as the spell) too, meaning a low level warlock will only have 2 uses (the free one and a single spell slot one) per short rest, wile a higher level one (till 14th level) will get 4 uses).

Shadow Hound feels to me like I'm stepping too much into the Ranger's teritory. It's his job to track things, not mine. We already have a similar single target damage spell mechanic (Hex/Hunter's Mark), and mine is superior in all reguards minus one (Hex scales with all attacks including spell attacks wile Hunter's Mark works only on Weapon Attacks), so gaining a tracking ability as well feels awekward.

Armor of Hexes Not bad at all. Feels natural that someone cursed by you would have some kind of penalty at hitting you. I would perhaps instead make it work as a breath weapon mechanic, were you can activate it once and recharge on a 6. It feels a bit less consistant this way as you can block only one attack per round, thus bringing more balance to the archetype.

Master of Hexes I like it. Gives a good reason to the Hexblade to stay Warlock for at least 14 levels of his career. Competes well with both the Fightlock and Sorlock, as melee caster and Eldritch Blaster, especially combined with the Smite-Like Invocation.

PS: Smite-Like Invocations: What I really want to see is a reason why I would pick them over dipping 2 levels Paladin for Divine Smite, that has not restrictions on the weapon I use... The only one that seems superior is the Archfay one, due to being the only Ranged one.

[Sception]

I think 'tracking things' is a bit to general a function to justify restricting it to one class, and there's already a strong distinction between a ranger tracking monsters that have passed through some area the party comes across and the hexblade who can only dog-follow a creature he was at some point close enough to tag anyway.

I'm skeptical of the hound thematically, but I don't think it steps too much on the ranger's toes.

[Byke]

Shadow Hound and Curse Bringer feel awkward.

The whole feel should be about bonding with the weapon and it growing in power.

Curse Bringer should allows the Hexblade to conjure any type of blade, 1h, 2h and even dual blades. This would go along way to making Hexblade different in aesthetic and game play.

At our table we are looking at replacing the hound with a simple +1 at 6th to Curse Bringer, + 2 at 12th with the abilities to absorb a single magic weapon property, 18th + 3 and absorb all properties of one weapon or add a secondary magical property. (needs testing but that is the general idea)

We also added Charisma to all pact weapon into the Blade pact.

[Sception]

I like the idea of invocations to summon particular weapons, but would rather there were more options for hexblades, and if none of them were quite as necessary.

like:



Fluff: remove the shadowfell/ravenqueen connection. There are tons of intelligent weapons that might forge such a pact, both existing and that can be imagined, that have nothing to do with shadows, and the raven queen is already a warlock patron.

To keep the dark, warlocky edge, replace that fluff with new fluff about the weapon feeding on the souls of the warlock's victims and granting the warlock necromantic abilities to manipulate those souls, replacing the shadow hound while keeping most of its effects. Maybe replace cone of cold on the spell list for something else, since as far as I can tell that's only there for the raven queen connection.


Level 1:
Hex Warrior: just the proficiencies, no cha attacks (but see Blade of Kas below)
Hexblade's Curse: same as now, but a flat +2 damage instead of damage tied to proficiency.


Level 6:
Soultaker: Your otherworldly patron feeds on the souls of your victims, and rewards your service with strange powers. The damage bonus from your Hexblade's curse increases to +3. Additionally, whenever you the target of your Hexblade's Curse dies, you gain a soul token. You may immediately expend this token to transfer your Hexblade's Curse to a different creature. This change does not extend the Curse's duration. (note, this replaces the Curse Bringer's ability, so the Curse Bringer should get something else instead, see below)

Alternatively, you may save the soul token for later, in which case it manifests as a mote of light floating in your space, which provides illumination as a candle while quietly whispering the soul's sorrows and regrets (whether any useful information can be gleaned from the whispers is up to the DM). At any time, you may have a maximum number of soul tokens equal to 1/2 your warlock level (rounding down). As a bonus action, you can suppress the illumination and silence the whispers, in which case the soul tokens become invisible and silent until you spend another bonus action to reveal them again.

If the original creature is returned to life (or unlife) while a soul token is in your possession, that token disappears, and any ongoing effect it is currently being used for immediately ends. At the DM's discretion, the revived creature may retain memories of its time as a soul token, including anything that was said or done in its presence.


Soul Haunting: You can use your captured soul tokens to afflict your enemies. As a bonus, you may expend one of your soul tokens to have the soul haunt a single creature you can see within 60 feet of you. The haunted creature is afflicted with a sensation of dread and unease, granting other creatures advantage to intimidate attempts made against it, and rendering it unable to benefit from long rests. Additionally, the target cannot benefit from half or three-quarters cover from your attacks, and you always know the distance and direction to the target, even if it is hidden. The haunting lasts for 24 hours, ending prematurely if the target dies, if you choose to end the effect as a bonus action, or if the target is affected by the Remove Curse spell or similar magic. A Protection from Good and Evil spell or similar magic prevents a target from becoming haunted by this ability, but does not end the effect on a creature that has already been haunted.


Level 10:
Soulcursed Armor: As your connection to your patron grows, so does your power, and your patron rewards you for your service by protecting you from harm. The damage bonus from your Hexblade's Curse increases to +3, and any creature affected by both your Hexblade's Curse and your Soul Haunting has disadvantage on all attack rolls against you.

Soul Greed: As a reaction, when a creature that is not the target of your hexblade's curse dies while within 30 feet of you, you may gain a soul token. Once you use this ability, you may not use it again until you take a short or long rest.


Level 14:
Master of Hexes: Same as currently, but also increases Hexblade's Curse bonus damage to +5. Additionally, Soul Greed may be used at will, without needing to rest.



Infocations:
Curse Bringer: The curse-shifting ability was made a subclass feature, so the curse bringer should gain something else. Maybe a bonus to critical damage equal to your walrock level, to take advantage of that expanded crit range? Also maybe have larger smite die than other weapon invocations - a change made by decreasing the other dice rather than increasing the curse bringer's.

Blade of Kas: prereq hexblade, pact of the blade.
When you summon your pact weapon, it may take the form of the blade of kas. The blade of kas is a longsword. You can use your charisma bonus in place of strength bonus when rolling to hit and damage with it. Smite damage (possibly smaller dice than the curse bringer's) is necrotic, and ignores any necrotic resistance of undead creatures. Additionally, when you smite you regain HP equal to your charisma modifier plus the level of the spell slot expended.

The Twin Points: prereq hexblade, pact of the blade.
When you summon your pact weapon, it may take the form of the twin points, The twin points are a pair of shortswords. When you summon your pact weapon, you may summon one or both of them, and other invocations that augment your pact weapon apply to both. While wielding both shortswords, you can cast warlock spells without their verbal, somatic, or non-valuable material components. Smite damage (possibly smaller die than the curse bringer's) is piercing, and you gain advantage on all subsequent weapon attack roles you make against the target until the end of the turn.



Those are the changes I would make, along with maybe reducing the smite damage from the weapon invocations to be more in line with what the paladin does, or maybe just not as much more.

[Deleted]

Funny, I'm pretty sure clerics and druids are not martial characters who get extra attack without 5 levels of multiclassing. And I'm also pretty sure that no other class that runs on wisdom (monk or ranger) gains any significant benefit by dipping for one level to get wisdom based attacks, as both significantly rely on dexterity anyways.

It's almost like it was balanced that way.

I'm pretty sure that Cleric and Druid are very popular dip classes for martial characters.

Also, the Cleric can be a very good gish fighting class...

So, I wouldn't be talking about balance when it comes to those two classes. Especially the cleric, it is not the poster child of "balance".

[jas61292]

I'm pretty sure that Cleric and Druid are very popular dip classes for martial characters.

Also, the Cleric can be a very good gish fighting class...

So, I wouldn't be talking about balance when it comes to those two classes. Especially the cleric, it is not the poster child of "balance".

Yet I don't think there is a single character that can do just one level in either and somehow become less MAD through shillelagh. Yes, they have benefits, but it is a trade off. As I said, only monks and rangers are martial classes that already use wisdom, and neither particularly benefits from Wis based attacks via shillelagh. Anyone else would by definition be making themselves more MAD, not less.

This here on hexblade is not a trade off. It is a strict improvement for certain classes.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's a little strong on the whole. Shadow Hound being terrible works as a balancing factor in a messed up sort of way, as there are very few archetypes in this game that you look at and go "I like every feature this gives me." However, the ability to ignore half and three quarters cover on a melee-focused character is highly situational at best. The only change I might make to it is to give the Hexblade advantage on Intimidate checks against the target of their Shadow Hound (as I've said in another thread), as that gives it something that's relevant outside combat and makes the ability less situational without making them any stronger in combat.

I don't really like Armor of Hexes from an overall game design standpoint. That goes from "Oh, cool" to "holy crap" as soon as the Curse becomes usable at-will (though that's somewhat true of the entire archetype), and much more importantly I'm not sure the return of flat miss chances from 3.5e is a good precedent to set.

On Shadow Hound, it occupies the level equivalent of Entropic Ward, Dark One's Own Luck, and Misty Escape; each of which is basically a one-off ability. This puppy is always on and acts as anti-hiding. Which is to say, if you want to ranged attack a halfling standing behind another creature, you only suffer disadvantage on the roll, and the guy doesn't get a cover bonus from the person standing in between (allowing you to safely make eldritch blast attacks, for example). It also makes you a devastating tracker, being able to follow someone basically anywhere they go, and providing an alert if they leave the plane or use magic to remove it (because it comes back to you).

I just find that kind of awesome as a mostly ribbon ability, and fair compared to the 'more powerful' but rest required abilities of the other patrons.

Actually, Soul of the Raven (the Rave Queen 6th ability) seems far more overpowered as it makes the Warlock immune to damage indefinitely (albeit incapable of doing anything to anyone else) making it kind of ridiculously powerful as a surveillance/scouting tool. Yet, I don't know that I'd really argue to change it either, it's just so flavorful.

As for Armor of Hexes, it perfectly emulates the abilities of the Hexblade formerly, and we already have this miss chances concept from Mirror Image. Suffice to say, I'm extremely comfortable with that as a fairly high level ability. For comparison other level 10 abilities: Thought Shield (psychic resistance, psychic damage backlash, and immunity to having thoughts read), Fiendish Resilience (choice of resistance), Beguiling Defenses (immunity to charm and reflective charm);

I'd also contrast it to the Raven's Shield ability, immunity to frightened condition + resistance to necrotic + advantage on death saving throws (itself basically a corrolary to Beguiling Defenses or Thought Shield).

For my money having the ability to always curse someone is pretty much required for the class to be functional. The curse is decent enough, but it's also single target and probably still not even better than Rage is, even once you can do it all the time.

By way of comparison, Raven Queen lets you create a permanent zombie minion pretty much every day, Create Thrall nets you a loyal minion, Hurl Through Hell is combination cc and damage, and Dark Delirium is some pretty boss CC;

Master of Hexes is fun in that it lets you use some of the invocations more often (Chilling/Burning) which would otherwise be pretty bland (1 minute of use requiring at least an hour rest to refresh? yawn) and makes your signature move more worthwhile (which is important once we're talking those levels).


And if you do, you don't need Spell Sniper as a feat with the Hexblade. Just hit the target with the Hound and follow it up with Eldritch Blasts that ignore cover. Grab Eldritch Spear for range. 19-20 on a crit at range, the ability to dodge attacks from your target, and Medium armor? Tough Blaster.

Bearing in mind that you have to be within 60 feet to apply the Hound and 30 feet (!) to Curse, I wouldn't bother with Eldritch Spear, or even worry about it.

[Zalabim]

The Hexblade originated as a class in 3.5's Complete Warrior; This was one of their unique (iconic) spells.

Basically everything the subclass is doing is a recreation of something from the class. The curse (that it gets better as the Hexblade levels), the probability armor, the hound, it's all classic Hexblade.

I'd have thought it would be a Fighter archetype, but I think with the 1st level benefits of getting better armor it works just fine on Warlock.

Would not change a thing right now.
I know it's based on older versions of the class, though I don't know the 3.5 Hexblade too terribly well.

Thematically, I don't like the connection to shadow for the ability. I'd appreciate something more generic.

Mechanically, it's another ability, unlimited use, that requires a bonus action to do something to one target. Hexblade ends up with a ton of these, and it's awkward. I don't mind what it actually does.

Nostalgically, other nostalgia-reasoned class features have been made into spells. Making a spell into a class feature seems backwards at this point. I could have played complete warrior's Hexblade without ever taking or seeing Shadow Hound (and indeed, I never did see Shadow Hound). Now I can't?

Speaking of nostalgically recreating the Hexblade from complete warrior, I was thinking of a few changes to the hex to that end. Specifically, it's aimed towards making the curse bad for the victim instead of just good for you.

Damage bonus: Make this once per turn so it doesn't favor multiple attacks or damage rolls as much. Optionally balance it for bonus damage (once per turn) whenever the victim takes damage.

Critical bonus: This could be expanded to all attacks against the target, not just yours.

Shadow Hound: Could be rolled into the curse's effect automatically if you want, and still sent out separately. Denying cover from all attacks, not just yours, optional. Optional big change: Make this a defensive curse. The first curse makes them vulnerable and gives you a boon when they die. This curse (also once per rest) would make them less dangerous. Penalize their damage rolls (once per turn) and deny them the ability to critically hit. Level 14 Master of Hexes would combine them.

Armor of Hexes: Could be made into an aura of unluck if you don't like this. I like it fine enough as is though.


Actually, Soul of the Raven (the Rave Queen 6th ability) seems far more overpowered as it makes the Warlock immune to damage indefinitely (albeit incapable of doing anything to anyone else) making it kind of ridiculously powerful as a surveillance/scouting tool. Yet, I don't know that I'd really argue to change it either, it's just so flavorful.
Ravens aren't immune to damage. It's still a great scouting tool, but I don't know how you got this idea out of the ability.

[Desamir]

Hexblade has some cool concepts, but honestly, it seems like a total mess.


Most of the power budget is concentrated in a one-creature-per-short-rest debuff.
There's a near-mandatory invocation needed to get the most of it (Curse Bringer) which restricts you to a specific weapon type.
That debuff suddenly becomes at-will at 14th level, completely upending the class's power curve.
Powered-up smites that encourage you to stop actually casting spells with your slots entirely.
Requires heavy invocation investments, so all those utility invocations that are supposed to make up for your limited spell slots get pushed aside.


It's a weird one-trick-pony with poorly spaced features that has potential, but could really use a rework or two.

[ZiddyT]

Ravens aren't immune to damage. It's still a great scouting tool, but I don't know how you got this idea out of the ability.

Their patron raven can't be targeted or damaged while it's perched on their shoulder. They gain the benefits of the raven being perched on their shoulder when they merge with it.


Hexblade has some cool concepts, but honestly, it seems like a total mess.


Powered-up smites that encourage you to stop actually casting spells with your slots entirely.
Requires heavy invocation investments, so all those utility invocations that are supposed to make up for your limited spell slots get pushed aside.


It's a weird one-trick-pony with poorly spaced features that has potential, but could really use a rework or two.

That's pretty much the point of a Gish. You sacrifice some of your casting ability/flexibility to become a competent martial. If there weren't any tradeoffs, what would be the point to playing anything else? You can't be great at everything at the same time.

[Zalabim]

Their patron raven can't be targeted or damaged while it's perched on their shoulder. They gain the benefits of the raven being perched on their shoulder when they merge with it.
"While the raven is perched on your shoulder, you gain darkvision with a range of 30 feet and a bonus to your passive Wisdom (Perception) score and to Wisdom (Perception) checks. The bonus equals your Charisma modifier. "
That's the benefit you gain while the raven is perched on your shoulder.

All this:
"While perched on your shoulder, the raven can’t be targeted by any attack or other harmful effect;
only you can cast spells on it;
it can’t take damage;
and it is incapacitated."
Is the 'benefit' the raven gains. When you merge forms with the raven, it is not perched on your shoulder and the raven does not gain the benefits of being perched on your shoulder.

I would think the bigger concern would be the fact that you permanently merge with your raven spirit.

"As an action, you and the raven return to normal." but "you can use your action only to Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, or Search. " And Incapacitated: "An incapacitated creature can't take actions or reactions."

[ZiddyT]

"While the raven is perched on your shoulder, you gain darkvision with a range of 30 feet and a bonus to your passive Wisdom (Perception) score and to Wisdom (Perception) checks. The bonus equals your Charisma modifier. "
That's the benefit you gain while the raven is perched on your shoulder.

All this:
"While perched on your shoulder, the raven can’t be targeted by any attack or other harmful effect;
only you can cast spells on it;
it can’t take damage;
and it is incapacitated."
Is the 'benefit' the raven gains. When you merge forms with the raven, it is not perched on your shoulder and the raven does not gain the benefits of being perched on your shoulder.

I would think the bigger concern would be the fact that you permanently merge with your raven spirit.

"As an action, you and the raven return to normal." but "you can use your action only to Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, or Search. " And Incapacitated: "An incapacitated creature can't take actions or reactions."

Specific overrides general.

As for the difference between your benefits and the raven's benefits, I took that interpretation myself, but there is no distinction in the wording. It says you get "the" benefits of the bird being perched on your shoulder. All that you list are "the" benefits. RAW you should probably be invincible bird-man whenever you want.

Almost certainly not RAI though. It needs some wording changes though.

[Zalabim]

Specific overrides general.
What specific? If you're invincible, you're also incapacitated. For clarity, the similar effect Wind Walk says "The only actions a creature can take in this form are the Dash action or to revert to its normal form." So please don't ask your DM to run it "RAW".

[RedMage125]

I agree with Zalabim.

The way I read it, the benefit that YOU gain when the raven is on your shoulder is that you get darkvision and a bonus to Perception. The RAVEN gets the benefit of not being able to be targeted by spells or attacks.

While merged with the raven YOU get the benefits of the raven being perched on your shoulder. So you get darkvision and the Perception bonus.

ZiddyT, you cite Specific Overrides General, but there is nothing specific that says that when merged you get the benefits that the RAVEN gets when it is perched on your shoulder.

[djreynolds]

I like it, it is very well written and cool.

That said, there are mainly 2 types of players in D&D.

Old people/players like me, who are still doing dungeon crawls, and counting rations, very mundane and gritty playstyle. What class is could I play as a real person? I'm a hunter... I could be a ranger. My wife's a nurse she could play a cleric. My son has a PhD he could be the wizard. I could play a grunt

And other players who want big flashy power. What class do I wish I could be? Flashy, emotional, powerful. I want to be a paladin or warlock, I myself couldn't do it real life. I'm not cool, my kids tell me that. So playing a warlock is like stepping of my crabby shelf for an hour or 2. I would like to be jet pilot

So the question is does this hex blade appeal to you. It does to me on a level, it is cool. Will I play one... no the kid's at the table will probably force my old arse to play a dwarf again.

Then again, I could play and old crotchety dwarven hex blade