Design "errors" in Xanathar's [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Specter

2017-11-23, 07:23 PM

DISCLAIMER: Errors are in quotes because these probably aren't errors, but a matter of intent. So, try not to comment 'they're not errors!'.

Inspecting the new subclasses in XgtE, I couldn't help but notice that some subclasses features seem to go against the original subclasses' intents, namely Fighter and Ranger.

Let's start with Fighters. Fighters at level 7th used to get an ability that made them good outside of combat. The only exception is Eldritch Knight, which gets War Magic, but I believe that was done just to have them use magic more often in the battlefield. Even Wizards confirms these arguments on the UA about modifying classes:

"Note that the 7th-level features for the Champion and the Battle Master lean heavily on the exploration and interaction pillars of the game; the Eldritch Knight gains spells, which contribute to the fighter’s competence in the exploration and interaction pillars, and so its 7th-level feature is geared to blending spells and attacks."

Arcane Archers get Magic Arrow AND Curving Shot at 7th level. Cavaliers get Warding Maneuver, and Samurais get Elegant Courtier. Elegant Courtier is a fine example because Purple Dragon Knights get a similar bonus to Persuasion except without a bonus save. Power creep much?

And then Rangers. All of the new subclasses get bonus spells, which are a much welcome addition to the 11-spell-learning Ranger. Those spells are also not from the class, which means a definitive boost for some (like Horizon Walker's Haste). These would be fair if these classes were below Hunters and Beastmasters in their abilities, but they're at least on par with Hunter and certainly outpacing the original Beastmaster.

So what happened? Why is WotC proposing these changes? Are they clearly interested in power creeping to sell more books, or is something else going on?

mephnick

2017-11-23, 07:36 PM

Are they clearly interested in power creeping to sell more books, or is something else going on?

No that's pretty much it. Maybe people were so underwhelmed by the Sword Coast options they decided to go the other way this time to help sales.

clash

2017-11-23, 07:42 PM

As far as ranger goes it seems like the bonus spells was something they realized they should have had from the start but Judy didn't want to introduce changes into existing archetypes

Eradis

2017-11-23, 07:48 PM

As far as ranger goes it seems like the bonus spells was something they realized they should have had from the start but Judy didn't want to introduce changes into existing archetypes

Haven't seem a Ranger in action in the 5th, and for what I understand, most people tend to put the basic Ranger class in the smoker's section e.i. the useless section as it's non-existent anymore.

EvilAnagram

2017-11-23, 08:01 PM

Biggest error, it's a DC 20 check for someone with carpenter's tool proficiency to pry apart a door, but only a DC 15 to design a complex structure. I can pry open a door with a hatchet and a chisel, and I'm a gods-forsaken Creative Writing graduate!

Moredhel24

2017-11-23, 08:06 PM

As far as ranger goes it seems like the bonus spells was something they realized they should have had from the start but Judy didn't want to introduce changes into existing archetypes

I agree. Hunter and Beastmaster fits w/ the spell less ranger ua they were working on/floatig around, so no bonus spels. The fluff/image i get of the xanathar's subclasses is more magic based/influenced so can see logic of granting bonus spells.

Kuulvheysoon

2017-11-23, 08:28 PM

Our wonderful Specter actually had the brilliant idea to concoct bonus spell lists for the two PHB Rangers.

HUNTER BONUS SPELLS
3 - Hunter's Mark
5 - See Invisibility
9 - Nondetection
13 - Locate Creature
17 - Hold Monster

BEASTMASTER BONUS SPELLS
3 - Speak with Animals
5 - Enhance Ability
9 - Conjure Animals
13 - Polymorph
17 - Awaken

Unoriginal

2017-11-23, 08:34 PM

They didn't do "power creep to sell more", they just listened to the community's feedback after the UA.

Vaz

2017-11-23, 08:51 PM

They didn't do "power creep to sell more", they just listened to the community's feedback after the UA.about the only time we agree

5e has been warm milk until now.

TheUser

2017-11-23, 09:34 PM

It's funny because I found the Fighter options the most underwhelming of all. I would rather have a battlemaster or an eldritch knight over an arcane archer any time. The limit of two arrows and underwhelming nature of the abilities is unacceptable. In amongst the abilities were maybe 2 or 3 that I would consider taking.

The Samurai is very underwhelming. The temp HP is so tragically insignificant in tier 2 and 3 I can hardly believe the designers play tested it and thought "yeah this is good"

The Cavalier is cool but all of its features simply amount to: Get the sentinel feat. The fact that the free attacks cost bonus actions and are limited to strength modifier # of times just has me irked.

Gloom Stalker having a way to get improved invisibility at level 3 is insanely overpowered.

Hexblade is so bloated with features the favoritism exhibited for the subclass is obvious. It makes an amazing multi-class dip for anyone who wants armor and doesn't already have it.

I also see very little reason to ever take Path of the Storm Barbarian

Ganymede

2017-11-23, 10:09 PM

Hexblade warlocks get two really good combat abilities at level one, while Old One warlocks get a ribbon. That has to be an error, right?

Kuulvheysoon

2017-11-23, 10:12 PM

Hexblade warlocks get two really good combat abilities at level one, while Old One warlocks get a ribbon. That has to be an error, right?

Nope! You're spot on, good sir. It is ridiculous, and makes me surprised that the Redemption Paladin lost his unarmored AC bonus and pacifying strike.

Mara

2017-11-23, 10:36 PM

Snowbluff

2017-11-23, 10:59 PM

Nope! You're spot on, good sir. It is ridiculous, and makes me surprised that the Redemption Paladin lost his unarmored AC bonus and pacifying strike.

Sup Kuul!

In general I feel like some subclasses are anemic, while others are vastly more flavorful/powerful/interesting.

Redemption feels like that after the loss of its features. Most monks seem like this, as do phbSorcerer origins.

Talamare

2017-11-23, 11:13 PM

Haven't seem a Ranger in action in the 5th, and for what I understand, most people tend to put the basic Ranger class in the smoker's section e.i. the useless section as it's non-existent anymore.

In my area Ranger is among the most popular

Hell, in one group I played in for a week it literally had 3 Rangers and a Paladin upkeeping Bless as they MURDERIZE everything with Sharpshooter

Discord

2017-11-23, 11:26 PM

Nope! You're spot on, good sir. It is ridiculous, and makes me surprised that the Redemption Paladin lost his unarmored AC bonus and pacifying strike.

Redemption Paladin went from one of my favorite paladin subclasses to my least favorite in the official version. The UA version was incredibly mad and needed some tuning, as well as people complained that the AC = 16 + Dex, was stronger than plate + shield, which is understandable. They could of toned it back a bit.

But I honestly believe they should have kept the unarmored feature, and then made the other feature a channel divinity. I feel like the subclass lost a lot of its theme taking out those two abilities. It's incredibly boring now.

PeteNutButter

2017-11-24, 12:02 AM

For the most part this thread could be called "PHB errors [attempted to be] fixed by Xanathar's"

PHB ranger is widely considered weak, with the few spells known contributing to that. So they buff the new ranger subclasses and also tack on free spells as a screwed up way to patch the ranger.

Fighter 6 is a common break point in multiclassing because of the overly weak features that most fighters get at level 7. By adding effective combat abilities to level 7, that encourages players to make meaningful decisions, instead of "level 7 is crap so I'm going into x class." I wouldn't MC out of samurai at level 6. Level 7 is a free feat!

I will agree that Hexblade is overpowered. I think the blade locks needed something to make them better. They went too far with hexblade, and it's a bit too strong, especially as a dip.

Overall, as an avid multiclasser, I find hard break points in certain classes to be a design flaw that should be patched in any way possible. If everyone is leaving ranger at 5, ranger 6 is probably in need of a buff. Unfortunately, since they refuse to change existing content all they can do is create new subclasses that try and balance these out. So fighter 7 gets a buff, but is samurai better than battle master? Not hardly. And since ranger 6 isn't a subclass level it continues to be crap, but ranger 7 abilities are pretty decent and they dangle fruit in front of the ranger, like Haste in 3 more levels.

Don't get me wrong, like I'm just some fanboy of Xanathar's. I just thinking measuring subclasses against phb subclasses, especially at key levels, is a poor metric. Many things will come out to be overpowered in the micro level, such as the level 7 samurai, but not necessarily overpowered in the whole. What Xanathar's is to me is mostly an attempt to fix the gaps in power level--or perceived power level--of existing classes.

To sum up: Swords Bard is the Valor Bard we needed. Nevermind that it totally makes valor bard a trap option...

Rowan Wolf

2017-11-24, 01:08 AM

PeteNutButter

2017-11-24, 01:29 AM

I would disagree a bit on the sword bard making valor a trap. Valor and lore are support oriented in nature (as is much of the bard chassis) while that works for some players, other would like more of their classes features to be about their character and so the College of Sword fills that spot in my opinion.

The problem with the valor bard is adding the inspiration die to damage is basically just worse than adding that to the attack of a near miss. Would you rather add 4.5 to damage or let the fighter turn a GWM miss into a hit for about 20 damage?

Adding it to AC is pretty much worse than Cutting Words, as you have to have already inspired them on your turn instead of doing it as a reaction. In some edge cases, that's better (since your bard can still have a reaction), but it's not often you know when an enemy is going to come close enough to hitting which ally a turn before.

Though I notice there is still a lot of lacking in the support of a melee focused ranger as more in combat use spells generally favor ranged.

I think a big problem with melee rangers is MADness and action economy. TWF is hard to manage with hunter's mark and even worse with the two new subclasses--so much bonus action competition. If you want to use a 2-hander, strength builds are MAD, needing a decent dex, con, and wisdom. I really wish there were more incentive for rangers to melee, but I can't think of anything that would really support it without being outright exclusive to melee. Maybe that's what we need, a melee ranger subclass. Then there is still the problem that so many ranger spells are tied to ranged attacks.

I've always been a bit annoyed that 5e has been so tied to the "ranger as archer," when the class is based on a guy who was very much a melee combatant, whom occasionally used a bow.

Foxhound438

2017-11-24, 01:49 AM

To sum up: Swords Bard is the Valor Bard we needed. Nevermind that it totally makes valor bard a trap option...

not really. You've adequately summed up why their 3rd level inspiration option is bad, and I've never considered it good, but valor bards still have a few things that blade doesn't:

1) shields
2) ranged weapons
3) and most of all, battle magic.

So what if a blade bard can get a free 1-6 on AC every turn at 14th level? if he's doing that, he's not casting a big spell, while a valor bard can cast a big spell and then shoot you.

Unoriginal

2017-11-24, 02:28 AM

Summon minor demon clearly states that the DM picks the summons while Summon Greater Demon clearly states the player picks.

Surely this most be an error and they aren't standing by the awful Sage Advice they did for summoning spells.

Now that's just being bloody condescending.

It's not an error. Summon Lesser Demon is supposed to summon a bunch of demons you have little to no control over, including on what kind of demons show up. Summon Greater Demon gives you a tiny bit more control.

Arcangel4774

2017-11-24, 06:06 AM

Now that's just being bloody condescending.

It's not an error. Summon Lesser Demon is supposed to summon a bunch of demons you have little to no control over, including on what kind of demons show up. Summon Greater Demon gives you a tiny bit more control.

It would be better named lesser summon demon and greater summon deamon. As if to suggest a difference in summoning ability (which would sensibly correspond to both power and control) as opposed to just a different in the demons level.

Solusek

2017-11-24, 06:37 AM

I will agree that Hexblade is overpowered. I think the blade locks needed something to make them better. They went too far with hexblade, and it's a bit too strong, especially as a dip.

I think the problem is that Warlock multiclasses too well overall, and Hexblade is just such a juicy multiclass for something that wants charisma anyways like a paladin or bard.

Comparing Hexblade 20 to any other Warlock pact (besides old god, which is the worst) doesn't feel overpowered to me. It simply has the tools needed to possibly make a melee warlock playable.

Specter

2017-11-24, 07:14 AM

No that's pretty much it. Maybe people were so underwhelmed by the Sword Coast options they decided to go the other way this time to help sales.

I'm still thinking this is it.

As far as ranger goes it seems like the bonus spells was something they realized they should have had from the start but Judy didn't want to introduce changes into existing archetypes

Yeah, probably, but the sad part is feeling that the PHB options can become obsolete.

Haven't seem a Ranger in action in the 5th, and for what I understand, most people tend to put the basic Ranger class in the smoker's section e.i. the useless section as it's non-existent anymore.

They're very good in tiers 1 and 2, and tend to fall behind after level 11.

Biggest error, it's a DC 20 check for someone with carpenter's tool proficiency to pry apart a door, but only a DC 15 to design a complex structure. I can pry open a door with a hatchet and a chisel, and I'm a gods-forsaken Creative Writing graduate!

Totally missed that, where is it?

Our wonderful Specter actually had the brilliant idea to concoct bonus spell lists for the two PHB Rangers.

I'm blushing.

They didn't do "power creep to sell more", they just listened to the community's feedback after the UA.

I'm pretty sure that if the community wanted anything, it was a general way of fixing issues, not just sweeping the old failures under the rug and come up with newish solutions.

It's funny because I found the Fighter options the most underwhelming of all. I would rather have a battlemaster or an eldritch knight over an arcane archer any time. The limit of two arrows and underwhelming nature of the abilities is unacceptable. In amongst the abilities were maybe 2 or 3 that I would consider taking.

The Samurai is very underwhelming. The temp HP is so tragically insignificant in tier 2 and 3 I can hardly believe the designers play tested it and thought "yeah this is good"

The Cavalier is cool but all of its features simply amount to: Get the sentinel feat. The fact that the free attacks cost bonus actions and are limited to strength modifier # of times just has me irked.

Gloom Stalker having a way to get improved invisibility at level 3 is insanely overpowered.

Hexblade is so bloated with features the favoritism exhibited for the subclass is obvious. It makes an amazing multi-class dip for anyone who wants armor and doesn't already have it.

I also see very little reason to ever take Path of the Storm Barbarian

I don't think they're overpowered either, but I do wonder why they couldn't just give them a flavor 7th-level feature and increase the potency of their core features (Samurai's temp hp is indeed sad).
I'd play a Storm Barbarian, if only for field shenanigans.

For the most part this thread could be called "PHB errors [attempted to be] fixed by Xanathar's"

PHB ranger is widely considered weak, with the few spells known contributing to that. So they buff the new ranger subclasses and also tack on free spells as a screwed up way to patch the ranger.

Fighter 6 is a common break point in multiclassing because of the overly weak features that most fighters get at level 7. By adding effective combat abilities to level 7, that encourages players to make meaningful decisions, instead of "level 7 is crap so I'm going into x class." I wouldn't MC out of samurai at level 6. Level 7 is a free feat!

I will agree that Hexblade is overpowered. I think the blade locks needed something to make them better. They went too far with hexblade, and it's a bit too strong, especially as a dip.

Overall, as an avid multiclasser, I find hard break points in certain classes to be a design flaw that should be patched in any way possible. If everyone is leaving ranger at 5, ranger 6 is probably in need of a buff. Unfortunately, since they refuse to change existing content all they can do is create new subclasses that try and balance these out. So fighter 7 gets a buff, but is samurai better than battle master? Not hardly. And since ranger 6 isn't a subclass level it continues to be crap, but ranger 7 abilities are pretty decent and they dangle fruit in front of the ranger, like Haste in 3 more levels.

Don't get me wrong, like I'm just some fanboy of Xanathar's. I just thinking measuring subclasses against phb subclasses, especially at key levels, is a poor metric. Many things will come out to be overpowered in the micro level, such as the level 7 samurai, but not necessarily overpowered in the whole. What Xanathar's is to me is mostly an attempt to fix the gaps in power level--or perceived power level--of existing classes.

To sum up: Swords Bard is the Valor Bard we needed. Nevermind that it totally makes valor bard a trap option...

"Screwep up way" is what sums this up. They couldn't just say 'hey guys, we made a mistake, add this to your classes from now on'. Instead, they went 'well, let's just think about the future'. Ditto for multiclassing points and dead levels (not that I care too much about those, some levels should be bad if what's coming ahead is very good).

not really. You've adequately summed up why their 3rd level inspiration option is bad, and I've never considered it good, but valor bards still have a few things that blade doesn't:

1) shields
2) ranged weapons
3) and most of all, battle magic.

So what if a blade bard can get a free 1-6 on AC every turn at 14th level? if he's doing that, he's not casting a big spell, while a valor bard can cast a big spell and then shoot you.

All of this. Also, whenever you're using your flourishes, you're spending Bardic Inspiration, which your friends will miss. So it's not like Swords gets a new resource like a Battlemaster, but instead it has to manage their already limited BI in attacks.

Matticusrex

2017-11-24, 07:20 AM

I think its weird that the Monster slayer archetype is completely tuned to killing casters. Should be called the mage slayer but that flavor kind of sucks.

Finlam

2017-11-24, 07:29 AM

I think its weird that the Monster slayer archetype is completely tuned to killing casters. Should be called the mage slayer but that flavor kind of sucks.

I'm a little disappointed that their anti-teleport feature doesn't come online until level 11, when casters have had Misty Step, Dimension Door, etc... for 7 levels already. I guess it's great at high level, but the majority of games I play never reach that level and short of a blind counter spell, this seems to be the only way to stop a teleport in the entire game.

Side note: why does "Mage Slayer" not have a teleport interrupt? Without it, that feat is more like "Mage Irritator"

ThePolarBear

2017-11-24, 08:07 AM

Side note: why does "Mage Slayer" not have a teleport interrupt? Without it, that feat is more like "Mage Irritator"

Probably because the rational is that it is meant to be a feat to place casters in a tough spot, not to crush them completely. A caster in the presence of a "Mage Slayer" is limited to spend a slot on a teleport (which means at most a cantrip as another in round spell), suck an AoO or deal with the "next to me" threat in a way that prevents an attack from happening.

It makes a bad position worse, just not worse enough for some.

MrFahrenheit

2017-11-24, 09:08 AM

The frustrating thingn for me is that there are far less direct ways that a subclass can become powerful than straight up dpr, yet still contribute to it, while being useful out of combat too (Fast hands and portent come to mind).

EvilAnagram

2017-11-24, 09:18 AM

Summon minor demon clearly states that the DM picks the summons while Summon Greater Demon clearly states the player picks.

Surely this most be an error and they aren't standing by the awful Sage Advice they did for summoning spells.
That's not quite what's going on. The general rule from Sage Advice is still in place. Summon Greater Demons is just an exception, and Summon Lesser Demons is just explicit because there was so much confusion.

Mara

2017-11-24, 09:30 AM

That's not quite what's going on. The general rule from Sage Advice is still in place. Summon Greater Demons is just an exception, and Summon Lesser Demons is just explicit because there was so much confusion.
You must have missed that they said back then that player picks for greater summons. They only said DM picks for lesser summons.

I understand this is confusing because both kinds of spells have the same wording in the PH. For this book they decided to double down on their clarification.

Which makes me very glad I looked at a friend's book and haven't spent a single dime on this game since the PH, DMG, and MM. I do not feel that 5e has been managed well and that the game is worse now than when it was released.

mer.c

2017-11-24, 09:37 AM

IMO what melee Rangers need to be viable is mostly just a better TWF system. Putting the core of their attack style into direct competition with so many important class features is a travesty.

ThePolarBear

2017-11-24, 11:15 AM

You must have missed that they said back then that player picks for greater summons. They only said DM picks for lesser summons.

I understand this is confusing because both kinds of spells have the same wording in the PH. For this book they decided to double down on their clarification.

Which makes me very glad I looked at a friend's book and haven't spent a single dime on this game since the PH, DMG, and MM. I do not feel that 5e has been managed well and that the game is worse now than when it was released.

Given the chain of replies... i honestly do not understand your point.

Is it an error to give players the ability to choose what to summon (in any case, level of power...) for you?
It also doesn't help that i have no idea what sage advice clarification you are referring to. :D

Specter

2017-11-25, 02:16 PM

IMO what melee Rangers need to be viable is mostly just a better TWF system. Putting the core of their attack style into direct competition with so many important class features is a travesty.

Or just making less class abilities rely on bonus action. I swear, even Hunter's Mark could have just been a class feature that started with 'when you make your first attack on your turn'...

Eric Diaz

2017-11-25, 04:02 PM

IMO what melee Rangers need to be viable is mostly just a better TWF system. Putting the core of their attack style into direct competition with so many important class features is a travesty.

I agree with this one. I feel TWF is under-powered and more thematically adequate to classes that have already plenty of uses for bonus actions.

Theodoxus

2017-11-25, 04:47 PM

I do not feel that 5e has been managed well and that the game is worse now than when it was released.

These aren't patches to a video game... you can play the game exactly the same with Phb, DMG and MM, ignoring everything that came after...

BigONotation

2017-11-25, 06:00 PM

I agree with this one. I feel TWF is under-powered and more thematically adequate to classes that have already plenty of uses for bonus actions.

Just change the Dual Wielder feat to accommodate: Change the +1 AC into Your offhand attacks become part of your Attack action.

Mara

2017-11-25, 11:44 PM

These aren't patches to a video game... you can play the game exactly the same with Phb, DMG and MM, ignoring everything that came after...I can't undo the sage advice that ruined summoning/summoning character concepts.

Willie the Duck

2017-11-26, 12:49 AM

I can't undo the sage advice that ruined summoning/summoning character concepts.

Honestly, the best response is just to reiterate, These aren't patches to a video game... you can play the game exactly the same with Phb, DMG and MM, ignoring everything that came after...
... including the Sage Advice.

Tanarii

2017-11-26, 02:03 AM

Do you guys not run or play in AL or something? Your patch analogy is actually pretty close to the D&D experience for a lot of people.

Theodoxus

2017-11-26, 08:17 AM

Nope. Don't play AL... This is just spitballing here, but if you Play AL, have contact with a decent group of people there, couldn't you branch off and find enough folk willing to play "not AL" on a different day? Then you get the best of both - play AL because organization and whatnot, and not AL to play the game however you want with whatever rules you want...

Unoriginal

2017-11-26, 08:39 AM

Patches in video game, you say?

https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/darksouls/images/3/39/Unbreakable_Patches_-_01.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170327064511

Mara

2017-11-26, 10:47 AM

Honestly, the best response is just to reiterate, These aren't patches to a video game... you can play the game exactly the same with Phb, DMG and MM, ignoring everything that came after...
... including the Sage Advice.

Because of dev commentary, you can now reasonably assume the summoning spells were always meant to work that way. Before the sage advice, no one could have REASONABLY read the summoning spells that way.

So sure, making up a bunch of houserules and playing basically a different game is an option, but I could just be playing a BETTER game then. The only reason I would be playing 5e is because it is popular atm. Anytime I would be playing 5e, I have to live with the dev's sage advice and mismanagement. Way too many people are watching those YouTube staged TTRPG shows and assume 5e's mechanics are whats allowing professional writers and actors to put on a good show.

Rowan Wolf

2017-11-27, 01:50 PM

I agree with this one. I feel TWF is under-powered and more thematically adequate to classes that have already plenty of uses for bonus actions.

I think bonus action as a whole are showing growing pains (I can see what they were going for, but the system doesn't feel right to me). It make it a matter of practice to find some use for that action every round (if at all possible) for perceived effectiveness.

I think was as a interview/dnd beyond video with Mearls discussing bonus actions and their limitations.

Vaz

2017-11-27, 01:58 PM

Specter

2018-01-02, 11:37 AM

Coffee_Dragon

2018-01-02, 12:56 PM

And yet another error I found, this time comparing Forge and War Clerics.

At level 17, War Cleric gets Avatar of Battle, which gives them resistance to nonmagical B/S/P damage.
Forge Cleric gets Saint of Forge and Fire, which gets the same... along with immunity to fire damage.

Get it together, Wizards.

Are you assuming that the rest of the subclasses are perfectly balanced, so that you can weigh the level 17 abilities against each other in a vacuum?

Gardakan

2018-01-02, 01:05 PM

As far as balance goes, I've yet to encounter something that disgusting that it'll break the game 100 % of times it is being played.

Xanathar's has interesting options for each class. Sorcerer with the Divine Soul got what divine clerics needed.

Ranger are brand new, and new archetypes (Swashbuckler for Rogue is so good) bring new concepts on the table (College of Glamour from Bard is a good contestant for the best supporting ability in the game with Mantle of Inspiration).

Xetheral

2018-01-02, 01:56 PM

Do you guys not run or play in AL or something? Your patch analogy is actually pretty close to the D&D experience for a lot of people.

Once upon a time the AL documentation specified that Sage Advice was available for AL DMs to use as rulings at their table, but not mandatory. Has that changed? (I can't easily check now that they've put the AL documentation in the DMs Guild store.)

Tanarii

2018-01-02, 02:01 PM

Once upon a time the AL documentation specified that Sage Advice was available for AL DMs to use as rulings at their table, but not mandatory. Has that changed? (I can't easily check now that they've put the AL documentation in the DMs Guild store.)
Lol I had to go back to see what the hell I was talking about a month ago, and if it still made any sense. :smallyuk:

To my knowledge AL does not require Sage Advice be used. But every AL table I played at the DM used them, although that was some time ago. And I still interact with AL DMs regularly in 3 different stores while running my campaign. They tend to be internet and rules savvy people.

Xetheral

2018-01-02, 02:04 PM

Lol I had to go back to see what the hell I was talking about a month ago, and if it still made any sense. :smallyuk:

To my knowledge AL does not require Sage Advice be used. But every AL table I played at the DM used them, although that was some time ago. And I still interact with AL DMs regularly in 3 different stores while running my campaign. They tend to be internet and rules savvy people.

Thanks! I hadn't noticed the date jump in the posts. *blushes*

ZorroGames

2018-01-02, 02:06 PM

Do you guys not run or play in AL or something? Your patch analogy is actually pretty close to the D&D experience for a lot of people.

I am currently locked into AL with all my groups but I like AL and I like 5e. I like that I generally know what kind of game (no weird house rules) I am getting into.

To me it is what AD&D aspired to but took the wrong fork in the road while trying to get there.

Admiitedly being turned off by 2e steroidal detailled changes to 1e and missing the debacle that 3.x and 4e were (according to old war gamer friends who played such after starting with me in OD&D) I am content to play my Clerics, Fighters, (ranged) Rangers, and Wizards so far and am branching into Rogues and Druids without a major discontent so far.

It is the people more than the rules that make the experience.

Specter

2018-01-02, 03:28 PM

Are you assuming that the rest of the subclasses are perfectly balanced, so that you can weigh the level 17 abilities against each other in a vacuum?

Unless you can state an earlier feature of the Forge Cleric that is definitely bad (not just situational, but downright weak) compared to other clerics, this is an error. This would be like Rangers getting two fighting styles at level 2 and Paladins getting only one.

baticeer

2018-01-02, 03:41 PM

I believe the design team has stated that their intent is to eventually release a revised version of the PHB ranger. I wouldn't be surprised if the apparent imbalance in the XGTE ranger subclasses is no longer present if they are applied to a revised ranger. ie, the ranger revision would include bonus spells for the Hunter & Beastmaster. At least that's what I'm hoping for.

Mikal

2018-01-02, 03:44 PM

Hexblade warlocks get two really good combat abilities at level one, while Old One warlocks get a ribbon. That has to be an error, right?

No, it's an attempt to make a Bladepact Warlock viable, since before Hexblade existed the best melee Warlock you got was a tome warlock who picked up Shillelagh and went Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade and PAM/Sentinel.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-01-02, 04:01 PM

Unless you can state an earlier feature of the Forge Cleric that is definitely bad (not just situational, but downright weak) compared to other clerics, this is an error. This would be like Rangers getting two fighting styles at level 2 and Paladins getting only one.
Their Channel Divinity is a fairly fluffy noncombat option that largely exists to save you a trip to the local smith or arms merchant, their Divine Strike deals commonly-resisted fire damage instead of commonly-vulnerable radiant, and they're a melee-focused subclass that doesn't get additional weapon proficiencies.

No, it's an attempt to make a Bladepact Warlock viable, since before Hexblade existed the best melee Warlock you got was a tome warlock who picked up Shillelagh and went Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade and PAM/Sentinel.
It's about exactly what people clamored for for Bladelocks-- the armor proficiencies they desperately needed, and a Cha-to-attack so they weren't "behind" compared to Eldritch Blasters. It's just a sloppy patch that clearly was made without multiclassing in mind.

(Me, I'd have suggested a Warlock cantrip that works kind of like Shillelagh-- activate as a bonus action for Cha-to-attack and an increased damage die with... oh, let's say daggers or sickles, those sound Warlock-y... or your Pact Weapon. Boom, good gishing for an equal price to Eldritch Blast-ing (one cantrip and one invocation), and if you want to pick it up without dipping, you're tying yourself into an inferior weapon and an action cost)

JBPuffin

2018-01-02, 04:10 PM

baticeer

2018-01-02, 04:24 PM

Hexblade warlocks get two really good combat abilities at level one, while Old One warlocks get a ribbon. That has to be an error, right?

Always-on, silent telepathic communication with all intelligent beings, bypassing language barriers entirely (with its only limitation being 30ft range) is a pretty freaking good non-combat ability. I wouldn't really call it a "ribbon" to be honest. Not saying it's necessarily of the same power as the hexblade's abilities, but it ain't nothing.

Tanarii

2018-01-02, 05:15 PM

Side tangent: EK's War Magic is great for the 7-10 period before Extra Attack II. Greenflame+second attack every turn is pretty legit, all things considered, especially since you're playing a Str/Int class that doesn't need multiclassing to be quite enjoyable...Before the SCAG cantrips, it was generally superior to War Magic as opposed to 3 attacks, unless you were GWM or SS. Since SCAG, it's always superior to War Magic over 3 attacks, unless (again) GWM or SS.

Specter

2018-01-02, 09:06 PM

Their Channel Divinity is a fairly fluffy noncombat option that largely exists to save you a trip to the local smith or arms merchant, their Divine Strike deals commonly-resisted fire damage instead of commonly-vulnerable radiant, and they're a melee-focused subclass that doesn't get additional weapon proficiencies.

Most of Knowledge Cleric's abilities aren't combat-related either, but no one's complained. Different strokes. But same stroke with an extra stroke? That's bad.

Specter

2018-01-02, 09:09 PM

Before the SCAG cantrips, it was generally superior to War Magic as opposed to 3 attacks, unless you were GWM or SS. Since SCAG, it's always superior to War Magic over 3 attacks, unless (again) GWM or SS.

And sometimes, you can get similar damage than you would with an extra attack, but with an effect you need (Ray of Frost, Frostbite).

Luccan

2018-01-03, 12:56 AM

The biggest "error", really, is that the designers are still pretending no one plays multiclassing games. Hexblade is potentially excusable in a single classed environment; suddenly, melee warlocks are viable. In multiclassing, however, Hexblade is the single greatest gish opportunity available and going any other route is going to be for very specific reasons. If you just want a multiclass gish, go Hexblade and never look back.

Of course, there's the stuff that's bad even in single classed games: rangers getting bonus spells is good. Not providing lists for the already existing subclasses is beyond bad, it's thoughtless. They can't have done that intentionally. I mean, how would not giving them bonus spells to their already tiny list even be remotely balanced against the new subclasses that do get them? And Wizards is clearly aware that Beastmaster, as least, needs a boost or the UA for them wouldn't exist.

Also, the Inquisitive rogue. What, what even is that? I'm not saying it sucks, it clearly has uses, but like, am I supposed to be a detective? A spy? What is an "Inquisitive"?

Rogerdodger557

2018-01-03, 07:29 AM

I can't undo the sage advice that ruined summoning/summoning character concepts.

Sage Advice. Key Word: Advice. As in, you don't have to use it.

Willie the Duck

2018-01-03, 07:52 AM

Of course, there's the stuff that's bad even in single classed games: rangers getting bonus spells is good. Not providing lists for the already existing subclasses is beyond bad, it's thoughtless. They can't have done that intentionally. I mean, how would not giving them bonus spells to their already tiny list even be remotely balanced against the new subclasses that do get them? And Wizards is clearly aware that Beastmaster, as least, needs a boost or the UA for them wouldn't exist.

In 3e, they did not go back and fix the fighter, they put out Tome of Battle and gave new options, such as the warblade, such that someone wanting to play that type of character would have an option (but not that someone who had already played a fighter up to Xth level would suddenly become good). In the same way, these new ranger archetypes are salvaging the ranger class as a whole, not the specific, poorly received archetypes in the PHB. It's a different strategy that I am unsure if I prefer, but I understand and appreciate them being consistent with it.

Zalabim

2018-01-03, 08:12 AM

It's about exactly what people clamored for for Bladelocks-- the armor proficiencies they desperately needed, and a Cha-to-attack so they weren't "behind" compared to Eldritch Blasters. It's just a sloppy patch that clearly was made without multiclassing in mind.
This. Really, this. Hexblade gives people exactly everything that was asked for for Bladelocks. Which is distinctly different from what bladelocks needed. The armor proficiencies they didn't need (shields for a polearm or greatsword user, and medium armor for a bow user, and high AC on a class that hurts people for hitting it on a subclass that isn't necessarily in any more danger than other warlocks) combined with the Cha-to-attack that makes them more directly comparable to eldritch blasters (instead of separating the builds so there's not necessarily overlap between blade and blast) is more than a single level with any other patron grants. It's not how I would have done it, but making a pact of the blade warlock is simple and streamlined now.

Most of Knowledge Cleric's abilities aren't combat-related either, but no one's complained. Different strokes. But same stroke with an extra stroke? That's bad.
It's not about being combat related. The Forge cleric's unique channel divinity is literally unusable in a fashion. The class gets up to three uses per short or long rest, but can only ever use one because it's used during a short rest. Subtly reading thoughts followed by free suggestion is useful all over the place. For the most part, the Forge cleric only has Turn Undead. The Knowledge cleric doesn't have these problems.

Also, the Inquisitive rogue. What, what even is that? I'm not saying it sucks, it clearly has uses, but like, am I supposed to be a detective? A spy? What is an "Inquisitive"?
An Inquisitive is a detective or private investigator, yes. It comes from Eberron, apparently.

Camman1984

2018-01-03, 08:59 AM

the forge clerics ability doesn't need to be used in a short rest, it just takes an hour, so being able to repeatedly use it if you have some quick downtime such as in the tavern when your dm says "anything you want to do before bed" or while other players rest for their short recharge abilities you can pile all the goblin metal junk in a like and convert to gold.

if you ask any warlock or fighter or several other classes how they feel about you making some extra coin while they have an extra short rest they will probably thank you.

SharkForce

2018-01-03, 12:14 PM

I think bonus action as a whole are showing growing pains (I can see what they were going for, but the system doesn't feel right to me). It make it a matter of practice to find some use for that action every round (if at all possible) for perceived effectiveness.

I think was as a interview/dnd beyond video with Mearls discussing bonus actions and their limitations.

bonus actions are brilliant. everyone who's claimed that they're "inelegant" or whatever stupid nonsense has failed to provide anything like a system that could take the place of bonus actions without borking a ton of other stuff. the simple fact is that bonus actions improve the game and handle a ton of issues in one relatively simple rule, and the biggest problem with them is that some stuff was made into bonus actions that should never have been bonus actions. the sensible solution is to use a different rule for the stuff that shouldn't be bonus actions, and leave the simple rule that solves all kinds of problems alone.

Mearls needs to get the **** away from anything to do with rules.

wishful thinking, i'm afraid. we can only dream of this.

Luccan

2018-01-03, 12:23 PM

In 3e, they did not go back and fix the fighter, they put out Tome of Battle and gave new options, such as the warblade, such that someone wanting to play that type of character would have an option (but not that someone who had already played a fighter up to Xth level would suddenly become good). In the same way, these new ranger archetypes are salvaging the ranger class as a whole, not the specific, poorly received archetypes in the PHB. It's a different strategy that I am unsure if I prefer, but I understand and appreciate them being consistent with it.

I think the problem is, the ToB wasn't supposed to be variant fighters and although you can ignore the book fluff, was very clearly intended for a specific aspect of the world, if not a specific plot line. And unlike with fighter, I'd argue you can somewhat salvage the previous subclasses. At least to the point where they get also get their own bonus spell list. That would've required a short section under ranger, noting that they're now giving ranger subclasses bonus spell lists and, hey, here's some for the previous ones. Because I can guarantee that some will still play the previous ranger subclasses and there really isn't anything wrong with bringing them slightly more on par with these new ones.

Willie the Duck

2018-01-03, 12:44 PM

I'd argue you can somewhat salvage the previous subclasses. At least to the point where they get also get their own bonus spell list. That would've required a short section under ranger, noting that they're now giving ranger subclasses bonus spell lists and, hey, here's some for the previous ones. Because I can guarantee that some will still play the previous ranger subclasses and there really isn't anything wrong with bringing them slightly more on par with these new ones.

I do not disagree with anything here. Just noting that they are choosing a different route. The problem with the method you are suggesting (which I will call the Functional Errata Model) is that, depending on what books or 'Rules Update' web supplements a different group uses, a given character may or may not have access to a given spell (or other thing, if we universalize the concept). As silly as it sounds for this to be a big deal (after all, between two groups one might allow multiclassing or feats, and the other not), it means that they would probably not be comfortable including a NPC in one of their adventure paths which has one of these new spells, etc. Thus it is less useful to them than the Replacement Role Filler model they are pursuing. Which also has precedence--since OD&D, instead of giving fighters new powers, here are these ranger and paladin classes in The Strategic Review or the Greyhawk Supplement with these new sets of baubles we just dreamed up.

And again, I am not sure which I prefer. Just pointing out that they seem to have decided on a strategy and are following through on it.

MaxWilson

2018-01-03, 01:16 PM

Because of dev commentary, you can now reasonably assume the summoning spells were always meant to work that way. Before the sage advice, no one could have REASONABLY read the summoning spells that way.

Uh, yes we could, and did. Especially anyone who ever played AD&D would have found it natural and reasonable to assume that the summoned creature is chosen arbitrarily/randomly, because that's exactly how Monster Summoning always worked in AD&D. Even elemental summoning had a random factor!

The biggest "error", really, is that the designers are still pretending no one plays multiclassing games. Hexblade is potentially excusable in a single classed environment; suddenly, melee warlocks are viable. In multiclassing, however, Hexblade is the single greatest gish opportunity available and going any other route is going to be for very specific reasons. If you just want a multiclass gish, go Hexblade and never look back.

Meh. If you're a part-warlock Strength-based gish (e.g. paladin/warlock), you already have access to Agonizing Blast and Booming Blade, and you're going to have high Strength anyway for the sake of your armor and grappling. Hexblade might up your to-hit bonus on Booming Blade from +5 to +7 (or from +9 to +11 at max level), but the benefit is marginal: you get slightly better at your backup option. For pure combat power, Fiendlock is still the best. But warlock gishes are already good enough at combat that you don't have to go pure combat power. Cthulock flavor is superior and more likely to be compatible with paladin mentality. And telepathy is cool. :)

Besides, Hexblade flavor is dumb.

Sception

2018-01-03, 01:16 PM

For my money, the biggest design mistake of Xanathar's Guide was making 'hex warrior' part of Hexblade when it should have been stapled onto blade pact to be usable by any bladelock patron.

Apart from that, and the mistake that bugs me the most, is that Danse Macabre is a 5th level spell, when by all rights it should have been 3rd level, at most. Such a cool idea for a spell, rendered all but unusable to player characters by its woefully overestimated spell level. Tragic.

Luccan

2018-01-03, 01:28 PM

I do not disagree with anything here. Just noting that they are choosing a different route. The problem with the method you are suggesting (which I will call the Functional Errata Model) is that, depending on what books or 'Rules Update' web supplements a different group uses, a given character may or may not have access to a given spell (or other thing, if we universalize the concept). As silly as it sounds for this to be a big deal (after all, between two groups one might allow multiclassing or feats, and the other not), it means that they would probably not be comfortable including a NPC in one of their adventure paths which has one of these new spells, etc. Thus it is less useful to them than the Replacement Role Filler model they are pursuing. Which also has precedence--since OD&D, instead of giving fighters new powers, here are these ranger and paladin classes in The Strategic Review or the Greyhawk Supplement with these new sets of baubles we just dreamed up.

And again, I am not sure which I prefer. Just pointing out that they seem to have decided on a strategy and are following through on it.

Fair, but you could just give them a bonus spell list using spells from the PHB. Even post in as official Errata online. You have to have the PHB if you're using the ranger (I don't believe they're in the basic rule set), so as long as the first two subclasses only drew their bonus spells from the PHB, it shouldn't be too big a problem. Again, this may require a little note in future adventure paths, something like "Bill the NPC is a Ranger Hunter, using the Ranger Errata on wizards.com". Ok, true, some tables may choose to completely ignore this, but I'd have to question why they would do that if they have an internet connection and I'm struggling to think of how relevant a few bonus spells could be to the ranger npcs in an adventure path. Also, do the adventure paths only use PHB/DMG/MM material?

I see why they're doing it this way, I just think fixing it could be very simple and nearly universally applicable. Which is why I think this was an actual mistake rather than deliberate design intent.

BigONotation

2018-01-03, 01:47 PM

No that's pretty much it. Maybe people were so underwhelmed by the Sword Coast options they decided to go the other way this time to help sales.

100% this. They are in business to make money not to offer balance. Did you see what the best selling book D&D ever is? Oh it's Xanathar's with their massively popular 5E that offers power creep to players? /s I simply cannot believe players want more power /s

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-03, 01:48 PM

Mearls needs to get the **** away from anything to do with rules.
Yeah.
I like 5e. To me it is what AD&D aspired to but took the wrong fork in the road while trying to get there. Mostly agree.

MinimanMidget

2018-01-04, 02:54 AM

Publishing Storm Aura (Sea) and Divine Fury on the same page is something I *hope* was an error, because the possibility that it isn't is too horrifying to contemplate.

Pharaon

2018-01-04, 01:14 PM

Apart from that, and the mistake that bugs me the most, is that Danse Macabre is a 5th level spell, when by all rights it should have been 3rd level, at most. Such a cool idea for a spell, rendered all but unusable to player characters by its woefully overestimated spell level. Tragic.

I'm not sure Danse Macabre is that underpowered. Assuming you are level 9, have 20 in your spellcasting ability, and raise 5 skeletons, you could be looking at 52.5 DPR (ranged or melee) from them. Skeletons are +4 to hit and 1d6+2 with either shortsword or shortbow. The spell adds your spellcasting modifier to attack and damage rolls, so +9 to hit with 1d6+7 for each of the skeletons.

While this is nowhere near Steel Wind Strike (165 DPR, vastly overpowered in my opinion), I think Danse Macabre is on par with other non-AOE 5th level spells like Enervation or Negative Energy Flood.

Regulas

2018-01-04, 01:53 PM

Not mistakes, it's just that they are trying to use entirely new content as a way to hotfix problematical old content.

It's like SCAG a cantrips help to fix Eldritch Knight 7th feature by making using a cantrip not suck... at least until you get your third attack, at which point just attacks wins again.

Ranger subs are continued hotfixing to the ranger class.

Hexblade is a hotfix for Blade boon. While yes it probably should be included as part of the boon itself they want to stick to "new" content e.g. a new patron instead of changing pre-existing content (the boon).

Really warlocks as a whole need a slight redesign as they are awkwardly cluttered in design. Personally I like the notion of making Patron just a spell list and making the Boon the subclass. Now you have subclasses defined by playstyle and not thematic style elements. The boon's now contain everything they need to work without having to tax invocations. Some patron abilities could be turned into invocations, but as a whole you would be free to actually pick extra abilities for your invocations.

Potato_Priest

2018-01-04, 02:26 PM

Most of Knowledge Cleric's abilities aren't combat-related either, but no one's complained. Different strokes. But same stroke with an extra stroke? That's bad.

You were comparing this to the war cleric though, and their abilities are explicitly good in combat.

Sception

2018-01-04, 07:31 PM

I'm not sure Danse Macabre is that underpowered. Assuming you are level 9, have 20 in your spellcasting ability, and raise 5 skeletons, you could be looking at 52.5 DPR (ranged or melee) from them. Skeletons are +4 to hit and 1d6+2 with either shortsword or shortbow. The spell adds your spellcasting modifier to attack and damage rolls, so +9 to hit with 1d6+7 for each of the skeletons.

While this is nowhere near Steel Wind Strike (165 DPR, vastly overpowered in my opinion), I think Danse Macabre is on par with other non-AOE 5th level spells like Enervation or Negative Energy Flood.

It burns your concentration. It requires five corpses on hand to use it, which means either the fight is half over before you can even begin to use it, or else it eats an entire second action to up-end a bag of holding, and you need to have that bag of holding in the first place.

By the time you cast this, any necro themed caster apart from a straight warlock already had the better, longer lasting, concentration-free version four whole character levels ago, and the attack and damage buffs don't and can't balance that out. So danse macabre is mostly a 'get back up' button for when a fight goes on too long and your animate dead minions have all fallen down. And sure, that's not unusable, it wasn't fair of me to say that, but even if the spell has some use, and reasonable damage output for its slot level, it's still fundamentally a less cool version of something your character has already been able to do for ages.

If danse macabre were a second or even first level spell, it would have to drop the attack and damage buff, and probably animate fewer corpses without upcasting, but it might also get to be relevant as more than a fallback option. Like, imagine danse macabre as a first level spell targeting one corpse, with no hit or damage buffs, and up-casting allowing you to rouse two extra corpses per increased slot level. It would have let necromancers feel necromantic from level one, with a good trick for second level slots, and then animate dead would roll in at third level and largely obsolete it. But it would have at least had a good two level run, and it would still have that back up panic button application for when too many of your undead minions have turned back into just-dead corpses.

A concentration-based temporary animate dead is a cool idea, but it's also fundamentally a lesser form of animate dead, belonging in a lower level slot. You can't sell it as a spell two spell levels higher, even if it's not under-powered it will always be under-whelming.

Vaz

2018-01-04, 07:35 PM

It can be done in combat though. If you can animate dead, sure, animate dead. If you need a quick bunch of ablatives right now, use Danse Macabre.

Pharaon

2018-01-04, 10:32 PM

If danse macabre were a second or even first level spell, it would have to drop the attack and damage buff, and probably animate fewer corpses without upcasting, but it might also get to be relevant as more than a fallback option. Like, imagine danse macabre as a first level spell targeting one corpse, with no hit or damage buffs, and up-casting allowing you to rouse two extra corpses per increased slot level. It would have let necromancers feel necromantic from level one, with a good trick for second level slots, and then animate dead would roll in at third level and largely obsolete it. But it would have at least had a good two level run, and it would still have that back up panic button application for when too many of your undead minions have turned back into just-dead corpses.

While I still like the spell in it's current form (I'm running a warlock currently so it's my chance to dabble in necromancy), I really like the version you laid out as a lower level spell. It fills the niche for a tier 1 necromancer and even fits narratively: you can't maintain undead creations at low levels, then you hit level 5 and you're strong enough.

Make it a second level spell that raises two undead (one additional for each spell level) and keep the attack and damage buff. That puts it just behind a second level scorching ray in terms of damage.

I always saw this spell as a sort of panic button to get you through the end of a tough fight, either using your own downed undead or freshly created corpses, but your variation keeps that function and adds missing functionality to lower level PCs. Very clever.

Specter

2018-01-05, 10:14 AM

You were comparing this to the war cleric though, and their abilities are explicitly good in combat.

Yep, and the point still holds. Just because Forge's Channel Divinity is out-of-combat, doesn't mean it's bad. That's also the only feature they have that is out-of-combat. Meanwhile, their level 6 abilities are also vastly superior to just lending your +10 to hit to a friend.

But the problem is not whetber it's front-loaded, OP and such and such. It's that you shouldn't give a subclass something from another subclass along with something else. That's bad design.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-05, 11:26 AM

But the problem is not whetber it's front-loaded, OP and such and such. It's that you shouldn't give a subclass something from another subclass along with something else. That's bad design.

Why, inherently? Things should be judged in their entirety, not on a feature-by-feature basis. Classes are path-dependent.

Dr. Cliché

2018-01-06, 09:43 AM

I think it's certainly a shame that Shadow Blade doesn't work with the Hex Warrior feature.

Talamare

2018-01-06, 10:07 AM

I think it's certainly a shame that Shadow Blade doesn't work with the Hex Warrior feature.

Probably because it was designed intended to be used by Arcane Trickster Rogues

Which is why it's an Illusion Spell
That can be thrown like a Dagger
Deals damage like a Rapier

Arcane Tricksters even get it at Lv7 which is a soft breakpoint for a Power Boost.

Dr. Cliché

2018-01-06, 10:10 AM

Probably because it was designed intended to be used by Arcane Trickster Rogues

Which is why it's an Illusion Spell
That can be thrown like a Dagger
Deals damage like a Rapier

Arcane Tricksters even get it at Lv7 which is a soft breakpoint for a Power Boost.

Perhaps, but it still seems like a shame, since it would fit right in with the flavor and theme of Hexblades.

Kuulvheysoon

2018-01-06, 10:14 AM

How about the fact that Eldritch Knights can never learn Steel wind strike?

Caelic

2018-01-06, 10:18 AM

The biggest problem I have with Hexblade is that it doesn't fix what it set out to fix.

The Hexblade, clearly, was an attempt to address the problem that Eldritch Blast was really the only viable tactic for Warlocks, because it was SO strong.

Hexblade attempts to make melee Warlock a more viable option, and does--to an extent. The problem is that the majority of a Hexblade's abilities work just as well for a blasting Warlock, and as a result, the gap hasn't significantly closed. A Hexblade (or Sorclock) who spams Eldritch Blast just got even MORE formidable.

Restricting Hexblade's Curse to working only with attuned melee weapons would be a start towards fixing this issue.

Talamare

2018-01-06, 10:35 AM

How about the fact that Eldritch Knights can never learn Steel wind strike?

Steel Wind Strike was designed for Rangers to use as a 'Final Spell'

So it makes sense that they inherently can't...

The real BS is that Wizards have access to the spell at all. It shouldn't have been on their Spell List.

Dr. Cliché

2018-01-06, 10:38 AM

The biggest problem I have with Hexblade is that it doesn't fix what it set out to fix.

The Hexblade, clearly, was an attempt to address the problem that Eldritch Blast was really the only viable tactic for Warlocks, because it was SO strong.

Honestly, I think this is a weird design aspect in general. I'm fine with Eldritch Blast being a Warlock's default attack (though it is a bit weird that they'd all have it, regardless of Pact or Patron). So why make it optional in the first place? Why not just say that they start off knowing Eldritch Blast and one other Cantrip of their choice and then go from there?

It just seems strange to me that Eldritch Blast would be optional when there's really no alternative. I mean, even if your warlock is focused on melee, is he really going to say no to an X1d0+Cha attack that inflicts Force damage and never runs out of ammo?

Hexblade attempts to make melee Warlock a more viable option, and does--to an extent. The problem is that the majority of a Hexblade's abilities work just as well for a blasting Warlock, and as a result, the gap hasn't significantly closed. A Hexblade (or Sorclock) who spams Eldritch Blast just got even MORE formidable.

Restricting Hexblade's Curse to working only with attuned melee weapons would be a start towards fixing this issue.

At the very least, you'd think that *one* of the Curse's features would only work with melee weapons. :smalltongue: