So I was reading over Hexblade and I noticed something weird.

[Ralanr]

Level one Hex Warrior allows you to use your charisma for hit and damage if attacking with a proficient weapon that lacks the two-handed quality. Not a fan but it allows the class to be played SAD so it works right?

Then we reach their special pact of the blade invocation (that every patron got in that UA) which requires a Greatsword.

I don't understand why these class features are designed in such a way that they do not synergize at all. I'm sure this has been properly explained, but what's the purpose of this?

[Tanarii]

Maybe they figured SAD is needed for a full spell caster to melee with for lighter weapons, until you start adding in synergy with GwM?

Of course, that first part is false. As the bladelock and valor bard and various domains of clerics prove, MAD is fine for full casters that want to splash melee.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's an old Invocation. It no longer exists, and was replaced.

But the idea was that you could either use Cha for attack and damage, or you could use Str and you could smite. With the exception of the bow, every single smiting invocation required you use Str.
Now that's no longer true, because as I said, that's an old invocation and has been replaced.

[Vaz]

Curse Bringer was replaced with the Eldritch Smite pact, which rebalances Bladelock Damage to be 1d8+1d8/level, doesn't require a particular Patron (although requires Pact of the Blade boon), and no longer gives you the majority benefit of level 14 at level 3, instead requiring 5th level, and lets you autoprone anything Huge or smaller, so you now have to choose between Thirsting Blade and Eldritch Smite, or swapping out one of your existing Invocations.

As a legitimate alternative to the power of Eldritch Smite, Cursebringer was awesome, but made Paladin straight up unattractive.

[ThePolarBear]

The Warlock invocations from the UA have been overwritten by a more recent UA. Those are not even UA anymore...

Edit: Well, that's on me to not refresh the thread before posting :D

[sightlessrealit]

The Warlock invocations from the UA have been overwritten by a more recent UA. Those are not even UA anymore...

Edit: Well, that's on me to not refresh the thread before posting :D

Ehh, that depends on your DM. One of my DM's letting me uses the old Invocations and the ones that replace the old ones.

[ThePolarBear]

Ehh, that depends on your DM. One of my DM's letting me uses the old Invocations and the ones that replace the old ones.

Obviously DM is a step above everything else while D&D is concerned.

[Spiritchaser]

I have a player now who's using the first set of hexblade rules. He made the choice and created the build with that in mind, and I don't think anything's sufficiently problematic to change the rules on him mid-campaign (though I do admit that the extra smite damage doesn't happen much on his darkness build.

If, or more probably when he dies (he has a certain, "all in" type of playstyle) I will likely go with the new rules for any new hexblades... should any ever exist again.

That said, I don't think the disconnect between the CHA attack and the STR greatsword was necessarily an error or an oversight. It is just as likely that there were two valid, but mutually exclusive ways that someone wanted to support, or at the least evaluate.

Greatsword (and GWM) with CHA was probably perceived to be overpowered in this context, but a STR build needed support too.

Even without the double smite, I still feel that a STR>CHA>Con /Darkness F1 Hexblade X is a very valid and powerful character. He's very tough against a lot of common things, he has good versatility and a lot of tricks, and he hits like a train.