Fixing the Hexblade

[Tanarii]

Hexblade is out of line with other subclasses, particularly at low levels. It needs an adjustment. While we're at it, we might as well make it less of a golden dip.

Couple of assumptions here:
1) I don't think Pact of the Blade needs a major buff, but a minor one might be in order, since that's explicitly why they made the Hexblade.
2) some of the benefits are acceptable just need to be delayed. It's too front loaded.

For starters, what about moving the Cha SADness to Pact of the Blade Boon? That makes it available to more warlocks, but moves it back two levels. That's a pretty substantial buff to the Pact Boon, but cuts down on dipping abuse for SAD attacks. He blades that don't care about Cha-based attacks still get most of the features to be a melee warrior if they take another Pact boom, see below.

Next, we need to deal with the armor situation. Dropping the level 6 ability, which isn't thematic anyway, and replacing it Hex Warrior (minus the Cha-based melee attacks), seems appropriate. That's a little weak, so we can take a page from the Valor Bard - gain Extra Attack. Non-Hexblades can take the Invocation if they want two attacks. (If you want to give Pact of the Blade Hexblades the opportunity for two attacks at level 5 just include a caveat they can swap out the invocation at level 6.)

That leaves us with:
Level 1 - Hexblade's Curse
Level 3 - take Pact of the Blade if you want Cha-based melee attacks
Level 6 - Medium Armor and Shields. Extra Attack.
Level 10 - Armor of Hexes
Level 14 - Master of Hexes

That looks much better.

[Luccan]

My only problem with this is that you don't really feel like a Hexblade, a martial warlock, until level 6 (or level 3, but then no more than other subclasses that take Blade Pact). Compare Bladesinger, which gets its martial proficiency and armor at level 2

[animewatcha]

Why not let it use it's curse ability cha mod times per short/long rest like how many other classes/archetypes for their abilities?

[Tanarii]

My only problem with this is that you don't really feel like a Hexblade, a martial warlock, until level 6 (or level 3, but then no more than other subclasses that take Blade Pact). Compare Bladesinger, which gets its martial proficiency and armor at level 2
Do you consider that a problem for the Valor Bard as well?

Point taken on level 2-3 vs 6 for the armor though.

[Quietus]

Moving Cha-SAD to Pact of the Blade and off Hexblade should fix most of the issues. Warlock 1 is a minor cost, Warlock 3 is a significant divergence from Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard to get access to it. If you feel really strongly about the proficiencies, you can add a tag that you only get medium armor and shield proficiency if you take Warlock as your first level. But personally I don't feel it's that big of a deal to allow the proficiency.

[Luccan]

Do you consider that a problem for the Valor Bard as well?

Point taken on level 2-3 vs 6 for the armor though.

I actually don't have a problem delaying the Extra Attack to 6th, particularly since the invocation can be swapped out when they get it (in case they wanted the extra attack a level early). My concern is the proficiency with armor and weapons, which both Valor and Sword get at 3rd and Bladesinger at 2.

Edit: It would be a little less elegant, but perhaps a hexblade who takes Blade Pact gets the full benefits of Hex Warrior at level 3? Still delaying Extra Attack to 6th of course.

[Keravath]

I don't see any real issue with medium armor, shields and martial weapons at level 1. You can get most of the same thing with one level of cleric, fighter, paladin, ranger, or druid (if you don't mind not wearing metal armor) so I don't see that as a real concern and if you want to play a martial type warlock they really need this from level 1. You could tie it to pact of the blade but then again this leaves the character without armor and weapons use before taking a pact which seems a bit inconsistent.

The SADness ability is one of the main reasons for hexblades being a popular one level dip and if you move that to level 3 and possibly pact of the blade then it becomes a very significant consideration for a paladin or similar.

P.S. Although I see the issues, I personally don't consider it broken to the point it really needs changing. I find it plays just fine and there is a cost for most casters who want to dip 2 or 3 levels in hex blade since it slows down their spell progression. However, I agree that it is more front loaded than many other classes.

[Segev]

Well, the way I approached it (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?587734-Turning-the-Hexblade-quot-Patron-quot-into-modular-powers) was to simply remove the patron and mostly add spells and invocations to the Warlock to replace the key abilities. I did also add shillelagh to the Warlock list, though a unique cantrip would also work.

I did take special care to try to avoid front-loading things. The spell that replaces Hexblade's Curse has options, and starts slower on what they grant than what the Patron gave up front. As you cast from higher spell slots, you get more options. New invocations open up new options when the spell is cast.

[GlenSmash!]

I like the idea of moving CHA based attacks to Pact of the Blade. I'd go even further and remove Hex Warrior altogether in favor of the Eldritch Armor Invocation from the class features UA

Prerequisite: Pact of the Blade feature
As an action, you can touch a suit of armor that
isn’t being worn or carried by anyone and
instantly don it, provided you aren’t wearing
armor already. You are proficient with this suit
of armor until it’s removed.

[chainer1216]

Hexblade is out of line with other subclasses, particularly at low levels. It needs an adjustment. While we're at it, we might as well make it less of a golden dip.

Couple of assumptions here:
1) I don't think Pact of the Blade needs a major buff, but a minor one might be in order, since that's explicitly why they made the Hexblade.
2) some of the benefits are acceptable just need to be delayed. It's too front loaded.

For starters, what about moving the Cha SADness to Pact of the Blade Boon? That makes it available to more warlocks, but moves it back two levels. That's a pretty substantial buff to the Pact Boon, but cuts down on dipping abuse for SAD attacks. He blades that don't care about Cha-based attacks still get most of the features to be a melee warrior if they take another Pact boom, see below.

Next, we need to deal with the armor situation. Dropping the level 6 ability, which isn't thematic anyway, and replacing it Hex Warrior (minus the Cha-based melee attacks), seems appropriate. That's a little weak, so we can take a page from the Valor Bard - gain Extra Attack. Non-Hexblades can take the Invocation if they want two attacks. (If you want to give Pact of the Blade Hexblades the opportunity for two attacks at level 5 just include a caveat they can swap out the invocation at level 6.)

That leaves us with:
Level 1 - Hexblade's Curse
Level 3 - take Pact of the Blade if you want Cha-based melee attacks
Level 6 - Medium Armor and Shields. Extra Attack.
Level 10 - Armor of Hexes
Level 14 - Master of Hexes

That looks much better.

TL;DR is "I think a 1 level dip in to hex blade is too good so my fix is to ****ing destroy it and make it easily the worst warlock option"

[Segev]

TL;DR is "I think a 1 level dip in to hex blade is too good so my fix is to ****ing destroy it and make it easily the worst warlock option"

Outside of mechanics, it already is! :smalltongue:

More seriously, not liking the suggestion is one thing, but if you believe it's overdoing the trim-down, you should probably either spell out what you think would be better, or outline why what exists isn't a problem.

Personally, I loathe the flavor of the Patron. In that it is incoherent and doesn't mesh well with the mechanics. Which is why the fix I linked to focuses on de-Patronizing it while getting the boosts the Pact of the Blade needs available to it.

[Desamir]

I like it, except I think I'd keep medium armor + shields at level 1 for the reasons mentioned by other posters.

[LudicSavant]

Some game design thoughts on the Hexblade relevant to fixing it:

1) Hexblade has a couple of features that only really help multiclassing. Therefore, if you want to make them worse as a dip, it seems like a no-brainer to remove them; it will hardly even affect their single-class performance.

First is the fact that Hexblade's Curse scales with proficiency instead of class level, unlike most features in 5e.

Second is the fact that Shield is on the Hexblade's list. This spell is amazing to get from a 1-level dip, but generally not worth it for a full Warlock to blow a level 5 slot on.

2) One tricky thing about having Medium Armor + Shield proficency and Cha-based attacks come later in your progression is that it creates an awkward period early on where certain stat investments are good now, but bad later (for example, you wouldn't want more than 14 Dex once you get those features, but you would want more than 14 Dex beforehand). So basically there's a balancing act between not wanting them to be too good of a dip, and wanting to minimize this awkward phase. I wouldn't put such features later than level 3.

3) It's worth noting that Tome Warlocks can get cha-based melee attacks (via Shillelagh) and Booming Blade at level 3, something that led to people joking that you were better off taking Tome than Blade for melee prior to the release of the Hexblade (and might be a good argument for putting Cha-based melee attacks on the Pact of the Blade rather than Hexblade itself, especially since Hexblade is a perfectly viable class without even using weapon attacks).

4) Ye olde 1-level Cleric dip can serve as a decent point of comparison for balance (being a noticeably better dip than that probably falls into the realm of "too good").

[Zalabim]

My philosophy is fix things where they diverge from expectations and try to do so in a way that causes the fewest ripples elsewhere.

So, i should probably explain my expectations. Because the other pact boons have exclusive invocations, I expect the pact of the blade to take an exclusive invocation too. Since Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast is a solid performing ranged attack for the entire game, I expect pact of the blade should have a solid performing attack (either ranged or melee) with the cost of another invocation and maybe cantrip too. Since the other pact boons have extra benefits beyond their ability to attack, I expect the Pact of the Blade to have a benefit besides a good attack too. I expect melee attacks to deal more damage than ranged attacks. Since attacks with weapon proficiency start out better than eldritch blast (which is playing catch up by taking agonizing blast, for example), and generally stay that way with reasonable investment up to level 10, I want them to continue to do so from levels 11 to 20. I expect a character trying to melee to have better defenses than a character trying to stay at range. So my current fixes are:

Hexblade: Hex Warrior doesn't give shield proficiency. Removing the charisma for weapon attacks is on my table, but I don't think it's necessary to push for my view on it. Eldritch Blast is pretty much the best one-handed weapon a hexblade could want, but not better than all two-handed weapons. Since EB already has range, it doesn't need extra AC to balance it against using a weapon in two hands.

Hexblade: Hexblade's curse is 2 + Half of warlock level damage, once per turn, instead of proficiency bonus damage every time. Reduces the value of dips, and evens out the value of choosing between a spell with one damage roll, eldritch blast with up to four, and weapon attacks that can range from 1 to 3 with Blade cantrips and bonus action attacks.

Invocation: Lifedrinker is 1d8 damage instead of +charisma damage. So non-hexblade warlocks don't require a high charisma just to get a normal damage bonus at later levels, easing the ASI burden on non-cha-primary warlock builds.

Still undecided: What, if anything, to add to the Pact Boon (blade). I want an extra thing to be special about the pact boon itself because the ability to make attacks that count as magical without requiring any items is something warlocks already got with Eldritch Blast. "You gain a martial weapon proficiency, and it's not worse than the eldritch blast you already have" is not quite boon-worthy. I'm rolling around an idea of "when you kill a creature with your pact weapon, you get X" where my first guess for X was "recover a spell slot, once per day" (like a rod of the pact keeper). I should also say that I think there's a viable "starts with weapons, sticks with weapons" warlock for whom pact of the blade is actually an upgrade over what they've been doing.

Thirsting Blade: It's like extra attack, but with some limitations. They have to be attacks with your pact weapon, so they pretty much have to be weapon attacks, and invocations don't work in an anti-magic field if that ever comes up. Ideally, I'd have the invocations set up so that with pact of the blade, thirsting blade, and lifedrinker (and maybe a cantrip too?) the warlock has a solid attack for the rest of the game and won't feel like trading those invocations for agonizing blast when eldritch blast scales up again at level 17. That leaves Improved Pact Weapon and Eldritch Smite to grant abilities beyond or separate from just a solid attack. If I just assume the pact of the blade also takes Polearm Master, it kinda works, so maybe I should work those abilities into the pact and/or invocations (then maybe I can leave lifedrinker as +charisma necrotic damage).

Thus, Radical suggestion: Thirsting Blade changed to "when you cast a spell, you can make an attack with your pact weapon as a bonus action," and blade cantrips made core to warlocks (at least pact of the blade warlocks).

There's my start, at least.

[P. G. Macer]

My band-aid fix for Hexblade is to move all of Hex Warrior into Pact of the Blade. This does leave Level 1 & 2 melee warlocks out to dry, but IMO the situation isn’t that much unlike melee Bards before they reach Level 3 and go Valor or Swords, so while unpleasant, it’s not unprecedented.

Maybe we could move medium armor and/or shield proficiency to warlocks as a whole while moving CHA-attacks to PotB?

[Tanarii]

I like it, except I think I'd keep medium armor + shields at level 1 for the reasons mentioned by other posters.


My band-aid fix for Hexblade is to move all of Hex Warrior into Pact of the Blade. This does leave Level 1 & 2 melee warlocks out to dry, but IMO the situation isn’t that much unlike melee Bards before they reach Level 3 and go Valor or Swords, so while unpleasant, it’s not unprecedented.

Maybe we could move medium armor and/or shield proficiency to warlocks as a whole while moving CHA-attacks to PotB?


I actually don't have a problem delaying the Extra Attack to 6th, particularly since the invocation can be swapped out when they get it (in case they wanted the extra attack a level early). My concern is the proficiency with armor and weapons, which both Valor and Sword get at 3rd and Bladesinger at 2.

Edit: It would be a little less elegant, but perhaps a hexblade who takes Blade Pact gets the full benefits of Hex Warrior at level 3? Still delaying Extra Attack to 6th of course.Moving Hex warrior to Pact of the Blade makes it far too powerful for a Pact Boon. And getting Medium armor and shield so early is part of the front loading problem in the first place.

I do understand the feeling argument. But it just isn't balanced. That's the dilemma.

[Luccan]

Moving Hex warrior to Pact of the Blade makes it far too powerful for a Pact Boon. And getting Medium armor and shield so early is part of the front loading problem in the first place.

I do understand the feeling argument. But it just isn't balanced. That's the dilemma.

I'm not sure why. The whole point of this fix is that Hexblade is too easy as a single level dip. It's not anymore. I personally don't think every warlock should get the full Hex Warrior if we want Hexblade to retain a purpose, but waiting until level 6 for your gish build to actually gish is way too long. My solution is to allow those actually focusing on the Hexblade's strengths (those who choose Blade Pact) to gain their armor and weapons at a reasonable level, comparable to other gish subclasses. A three level dip is still pretty deep and delays your second attack as a Pally and puts you behind two spell levels as a caster.

Edit: The armor isn't appealing to a Paladin and a Sorcerer focused gish is still able to grab the armor and weapons from levels in Valor Bard, which has its own synergy. So it seems to me the problem you're having is Cha SADness. Which is a problem you can only fix by getting rid of that entirely. But now we're back to Blade Pact being a poor choice for a gishlock. The only alternative that comes to me is making Thirsting Blade give the Charisma to hit/damage in addition to the extra attack, but now it's absolutely a Invocation Tax

[Waterdeep Merch]

You can just straight up ban dipping it. While overwhelmingly common and expected, multiclassing is intended to be a variant anyway. Add a simple caveat of "you can't be a hexblade unless you want to remain in the warlock class" and there's suddenly very little problem with getting things online early.

Still might move the Curse to 6 and ditch the weird ghost slave. It barely gets used anyway.

EDIT: And attach Extra Attack right to the Pact of the Blade. That never should have been an invocation tax.

[HappyDaze]

How about NEVER giving them the ability to use Cha with weapon attacks but creating a cantrip along the lines of booming blade that warlocks can use for such purposes along with giving said cantrip to Hexblades as a freebie at level 1.

[Segev]

Hm. Aside from making a not-quite-shilelagh cantrip to add to the Warlock spell list, what if you just made mage armor a warlock spell? Ditch the invocation, let them spend a spell known slot. Yes, this is "cheesy" in that they can just cast it then short rest to get it back, and a spell known is cheaper than an invocation, but is it so much cheaper that mage armor becomes a no-brainer of a spell selection compared to making them spend an invocation on it?

This would give them 13+dex AC from level 1 if they want it, and the not-quite-shillelagh spell could give them Cha-to-melee with their enchanted weapon. An invocation that gives them medium armor proficiency and shield proficiency would then let them trade out the mage armor spell for a different one at level 2, smoothly progressing into more of the "hexblade style."

The gishlock level 1 then knows mage armor and eldritch curse (the Hexblade's Curse redone as a spell; I recommend it being nerfed a bit to pick one of its several features per level of the slot used, which lets it scale naturally for warlocks but makes it much less dippable). At level 2, he swaps mage armor for something else, and picks up the Invocation that gives him his armor and shield proficiency. Maybe he picks up the Invocation to expand options on eldritch curse, or maybe he waits a bit until he's getting higher-level spell slots to cast it from. Level 3, he gets Pact of the Blade if he's going all-in on the gishlock thing, and can start picking up Invocations to improve that.



Edit to add: In fact, I think I will call the Cantrip "Hexblade."

Hexblade
Transmutation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a melee weapon)
Duration: 1 minute
The weapon you are holding is imbued with your Patron's power. For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of attacks using that weapon. The weapon also becomes magical, if it isn’t already. The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon. If you have Pact of the Blade, you can cast this spell on your Pact Weapon as part of making an attack with it, and your Pact Weapon is a valid target for this spell no matter its form.


Also, since I mention it, I'll just copy it and the expansion Invocations here for reference. This is intended to replace "Hexblade's Curse" as a mechanic.

Eldritch Curse
Level 1 Necromancy
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Target: One creature you can see within 30 feet
Duration: 1 minute
You pronounce a baleful curse upon the target. Until the curse ends, you gain one of the following benefits, chosen when you cast the spell:
You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. This bonus equals your proficiency bonus.
Any attack roll you make against the cursed target is a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20 on the d20.
If the cursed target dies, you regain hit points equal to your warlock level + your Charisma modifier (minimum 1).
You may have only one Eldritch Curse at a time. If you cast it on a second target while another is still cursed, the spell ends for the first target.
If you cast this spell from a 2nd level slot or higher, you may choose an additional option from the above list for each slot above 1st. You may not take any option more than once.


Additional Invocations
Rebuking Curse
Must be at least level 9 to take this invocation, and must know eldritch curse
When you cast eldritch curse, you may select from the following additional options to apply to the target when you cast the spell:
When the target hits you with an attack, roll 1d6. On a 4+, the attack misses instead.
When the target takes necrotic damage from any source, you heal the lower of that amount or the target's hit dice in hit point damage.
When the target makes an attack against you, you may make a melee or ranged weapon attack against the target as a reaction.
Dread Curse
Must be at least level 15 to take this invocation, and must know eldritch curse
When you cast eldritch curse, you may select from the following additional options to apply to the target when you cast the spell:
The target is Charmed and Frightened by you, and may make a Charisma save each round on his turn to end this effect.
You may Dash as a bonus action so long as your movement places you closer to the target than you started, or adjacent to him. You gain the movement capabilities of the gasseous form spell while moving, but retain your normal speed. To observers, you appear to move between blinks and when they're not looking.
If you have hit the target with a ranged attack since his last turn, he must make a Wisdom saving throw to be able to take any voluntary movement actions which end with him further away from you than he began his turn. This includes teleportation and other magical effects. Creatures immune to being Charmed are immune to this effect.

[Hael]

From a single class perspective (ignoring the multiclass diping issue) hexblade is basically balanced except for easy and consistent self advantage which sends it’s damage into the stratosphere relative to every other martial when combined with certain feats.

In fact it still suffers from ranged EB scaling better than melee, so in some sense you want to buff its melee relatively speaking all the while scaling back the perma advantage (which benefits both).

The issue as far as I can see is that self advantage was clearly always part of the Warlock design and was always assumed that way. It’s not like we just stumbled on this like some gms assume, so they would need some compensation.

[jmartkdr]

Hm. Aside from making a not-quite-shilelagh cantrip to add to the Warlock spell list, what if you just made mage armor a warlock spell? Ditch the invocation, let them spend a spell known slot. Yes, this is "cheesy" in that they can just cast it then short rest to get it back, and a spell known is cheaper than an invocation, but is it so much cheaper that mage armor becomes a no-brainer of a spell selection compared to making them spend an invocation on it?

This would give them 13+dex AC from level 1 if they want it, and the not-quite-shillelagh spell could give them Cha-to-melee with their enchanted weapon. An invocation that gives them medium armor proficiency and shield proficiency would then let them trade out the mage armor spell for a different one at level 2, smoothly progressing into more of the "hexblade style."

The gishlock level 1 then knows mage armor and eldritch curse (the Hexblade's Curse redone as a spell; I recommend it being nerfed a bit to pick one of its several features per level of the slot used, which lets it scale naturally for warlocks but makes it much less dippable). At level 2, he swaps mage armor for something else, and picks up the Invocation that gives him his armor and shield proficiency. Maybe he picks up the Invocation to expand options on eldritch curse, or maybe he waits a bit until he's getting higher-level spell slots to cast it from. Level 3, he gets Pact of the Blade if he's going all-in on the gishlock thing, and can start picking up Invocations to improve that.

This still leaves them pretty MAD, since they'll need at least a 16 Dex to not die a lot, and realistically need to increase that at 4th and 8th level to continue not dying a lot. Running around with a 15 AC is fine for barbarians who are resistant to weapons or backliners who never want to be in melee anyway, but for a frontliner it's just not good enough.

This would work great if you expected melee warlocks to only use finesse weapons, but that works with PHB-only Pact of the Blade options as is.

If the hexblade can't reasonably use an oversized scythe (refluffed greataxe), then the class is not meeting it's fantasy.

[MThurston]

There is nothing wrong with the hexblade.

[P. G. Macer]

From a single class perspective (ignoring the multiclass diping issue) hexblade is basically balanced except for easy and consistent self advantage which sends it’s damage into the stratosphere relative to every other martial when combined with certain feats.

In fact it still suffers from ranged EB scaling better than melee, so in some sense you want to buff its melee relatively speaking all the while scaling back the perma advantage (which benefits both).

The issue as far as I can see is that self advantage was clearly always part of the Warlock design and was always assumed that way. It’s not like we just stumbled on this like some gms assume, so they would need some compensation.

I wouldn’t be too sure of single-classed Hexblade being balanced. Specifically, compare the features each Warlock Patron gets at Level 1. All the PHB patrons only get one feature, and the Celestial gets two but the Bonus Cantrips are pretty much a ribbon (granted, I used Sacred Flame + Radiant Soul a fair bit when I played a Celestial Warlock, but it was under niche circumstances). The Undying Patron is the odd one out aside from Hexblade, as while it only has one first-level feature, there are multiple effects in it, but Among the Dead is as a whole still considered pretty situational.

Then we have Level 1 Hexblade, which gets both Hex Warrior and Hexblade’s Curse, each a powerful feature. Even if you don’t go Pact of the Blade or even melee at all, Hex Warrior’s armor and shields makes it an appealing feature.

[Segev]

This still leaves them pretty MAD, since they'll need at least a 16 Dex to not die a lot, and realistically need to increase that at 4th and 8th level to continue not dying a lot. Running around with a 15 AC is fine for barbarians who are resistant to weapons or backliners who never want to be in melee anyway, but for a frontliner it's just not good enough.

This would work great if you expected melee warlocks to only use finesse weapons, but that works with PHB-only Pact of the Blade options as is.

If the hexblade can't reasonably use an oversized scythe (refluffed greataxe), then the class is not meeting it's fantasy.

Really? I see them as taking 14 Dex at max, since they get proficiency with medium armor, and that caps out dex mod to AC at +2. I figure by level 3 or 4, they have at least scale mail, for AC of 16 (with Dex 14+), or AC 18 if they pick up a shield to go wtih it. Even getting half plate isn't out of the question by level 5 or 6. That'd push their AC up another point.

Edit: Since my proposal gives mage armor as a warlock spell, Armor of Shadows can be repurposed, too. Or call the new Invocation "Eldritch Armor." Either way -


Armor of Shadows
Your Patron's power suffuses armor and shields you wear, lightening them and giving you a knack with them. You gain proficiency with medium armor and shields. When wearing them, they take on minor cosmetic flourishes of your choosing appropriate to your patron.

[Petrocorus]

My band-aid fix for Hexblade is to move all of Hex Warrior into Pact of the Blade. This does leave Level 1 & 2 melee warlocks out to dry, but IMO the situation isn’t that much unlike melee Bards before they reach Level 3 and go Valor or Swords, so while unpleasant, it’s not unprecedented.


Moving Hex warrior to Pact of the Blade makes it far too powerful for a Pact Boon. And getting Medium armor and shield so early is part of the front loading problem in the first place.

I do understand the feeling argument. But it just isn't balanced. That's the dilemma.
I'm with P. G. Macer on this. I was going to say the exact same thing.
IMHO, Hex Warrior is exactly what Pact of the Blade should have been.

And i believe this is balanced because:

Hexblade stop being such a good dip.

The weapon counting as magical is really a boon TBH, but you get this with Shillelagh, and many other classes can get this or an equivalent after a few levels (notably with cantrips) and low-magic weapons are not that rare.
Being able to summon your weapon is just gravy you won't use that much, notably because it cost you an action unlike the EK version (bonus action).
So, as it is, Pact of the Blade is just a free modifiable proficiency and the ability to overcome resistance/immunity against non-magical weapon early.
Not enough to really go into melee.

With this, Warlocks from all patrons could be proper Bladelocks without dipping or spending a feat for their AC.

Without Hex Warrior, the Hexblade would still be on the upper half of Patrons, clearly better than GOO and Undying and probably better than Archfey IMHO. And you can still let them get medium armor and shield at level one if you want (though they would remain dip-friendly with this).

The other Pacts can also be powerful if well-used. And they also give access to really cool Invocations. BoAS is probably one of the best Invocations and what gish wouldn't like Gift of the Ever-Living Ones.


And why am i not able to eliminate all the orthography mistakes without editing a post half a dozen times.

[Hael]

I wouldn’t be too sure of single-classed Hexblade being balanced.

Honestly Warlocks are pretty underwhelming as a single class.

However, Hexblades are so different that they’re almost a different class altogether, and I was really comparing them to other Gishes and martials in my mind. And as far as that comparison goes, remove self advantage and all the darkness shenanigans and the other classes are competitive and fine.

But yea if you’re point of balance is a comparison to an Undying single class pact of the tome warlock, then yea Hexblade is well above it.

[Daphne]

I disagree that the 6th-level ins't thematic, the subclass is about curses. So I'm assuming you want the Hexblade to be a balanced "gish".

I think removing the proficiency with shields would be enough, just medium armor proficiency alone. Maybe add proficiency with martial weapons to add to the flavor, otherwise the 1st-level ability gives no hints this subclass is supposed to be a gish.

[ZRN]

I like the Eldritch Armor invocation from a recent UA that basically lets you touch an (unworn) suit of armor and instantly don it with proficiency: it gives you effectively free medium/heavy armor proficiency, it's cool and situationally effective (don't have to sleep in plate armor), and importantly, it takes up an invocation slot so it's not just a free buff to the pact.

As for the broader question of whether the hexblade patron sucks narratively: I actually don't think it does! Being corrupted by a powerful magic blade is really common in the fantasy genre; it's harder to justify narratively if you're corrupted by your evil heirloom greatsword, but aren't even proficient with it until level 3.

The problem is that every patron OTHER than hexblade is mostly flavor, and every pact OTHER than blade works effectively with any other patron. This could be rectified, but it'd take a significant rewrite of both. (As a lot of people here are saying, a big part of that would probably be moving the charisma-to-attacks to the pact.)

[Segev]

The problem is that every patron OTHER than hexblade is mostly flavor, and every pact OTHER than blade works effectively with any other patron. This could be rectified, but it'd take a significant rewrite of both. (As a lot of people here are saying, a big part of that would probably be moving the charisma-to-attacks to the pact.)

Certainly, the biggest problem I have is that the other Patrons are much more flavorful and solid, while the Hexblade is clearly a patch for the Pact of the Blade with a barely-thought-out and ill-matched-to-mechanics fluff hand-wave.

I would say, however, the best approach to fixing it isn't to fold it into the Pact of the Blade, but to make changes that enable Pact of the Blade to shine with other choices. Pact of the Blade doesn't HAVE to be a gish, but obviously needs to be able to do it if the player wants. Hence a focus on some 1st-level-accessible spells to make that feasible.

[jas61292]

I think the two biggest issues to address with Hexblade are (baring the flavor mess that it is) its overly frontloaded start, and the fact that exists primarily as a Pact of the Blade fix. So I think the most important thing to do if you are fixing it is to take something that it gets early and move it over to the Pact of the Blade. Now, I know in the OP you did that with Cha for attacks, but that is not the route I would go, mainly because I don't think Cha for attacks should exist at all. No other class, not even the gishy subclasses like Valor Bard or Bladesinger Wizard, get to use a casting stat for attacking. Not even cantrips that let you make weapon attacks let you make them with your casting stat. The only real way to do this is with Shillelagh, and that is a cantrip that requires action economy to be used at the start of battle, can only be used with specific weaker weapons, and is only available naturally to characters who cannot get extra attack. I personally see no reason why the Warlock needs to be a weird exception that gets to use Charisma for physical. If the Blade Warlock is having issues due to needing too many stats, then the answer is to find another way to aleviate that burden.

In this case, I think the number one issue for the Bladelock when it comes to stats is AC. As is, most classes require you to be good in one ability for your main thing, and often one other ability for a secondary thing. The issue for Bladelock is that without using big, powerful weapons, they are not usually good at their secondary thing, but if they invest in strength, then their AC is garbage. I think the fix here is to have Pact of the Blade help fix up their AC, in addition to giving them access to martial weapons. The simple and easy way to do this is to move the medium armor proficiency to the pact. Having decent armor is part and parcel with being a melee combatant, so in that sense, it is logical for the pact to give both. Furthermore, it makes the pact bonus more powerful, without really feeling out of line with the other pact boons.

When a Bladelock has medium armor, they can far more easily invest in a secondary stat of strength, bringing them in line more with other single class gishes. Furthermore, by taking the armor out of Hexblade, and back to level 3, it makes the class far less dip-able for casters. Now, if you want to give something in exchange for what was lost, my first thought would actually be to give Hexblades a fighting style, from any of the published options except for Archery (due to Hexblades and Pact of the Blade having a focus on melee without special invocations) and Protection (do to the lack of natural shield proficiency). This would cement in a more martial feel for the subclass, without actually requiring it, as one who intends to just take a different Pact Boon could always just pick up Defense.

As for other changes, the Hex should be changed to be based on Warlock level, as others have mentioned. Beyond that, I only really have issues with the flavor of the class and how it doesn't really fit what I think of as Warlocks. Stuff like the specter thing seem weird thematically, but I would not have an issue with it balance wise if other changes were made. And if other changes are being made due to the flavor, it would be a much bigger overhaul than I am willing to take the time to post about.

[Man_Over_Game]

Moving Hex warrior to Pact of the Blade makes it far too powerful for a Pact Boon.

Not sure why that's the case. To make Pact of the Blade competitive as a Warlock build, it'd need a lot more invocations than your other options, as Pact of the Blade's value is tied into Actions and Damage (which have to find a way to scale) while Tome and Chain both grant Utility options that maintain their value through all levels of play.


Personally, I'd move all of the proficiencies to Pact of the Blade, move Hex Warrior to Pact of the Blade, change Hexblade to be a curse-based Patron that focuses on specific targets (similar to Vengeance Paladin), curses, and retaliation effects. Worst-case scenario, a full Pact of the Blade build turns someone into a squishier Paladin with better casting, and Hexblade maintains its role as a damage-focused Warlock Patron but with an actual theme.

This plays into the whole "curse" theme the Hexblade's specific invocations all center around, and makes it so that you now have 6 melee and 6 caster builds out of Warlock, instead of 1 melee and 5 casters.

Having Hexblade be the primary option for a melee Warlock seems like a broken solution to a problem in the first place, and repeating it for the sake of caution seems kinda silly when doing nothing is an option.

[MThurston]

My Hexblade is the tank of the group. 92 HPS and an AC of 21.

I get two attacks and I am hitting really hard.

I hex and move it around. I use a second spell depending on what is going on.

I rarely have any issues. Iam rocking a 20 Con and 20 Cha though which help a great deal.

[jmartkdr]

Really? I see them as taking 14 Dex at max, since they get proficiency with medium armor, and that caps out dex mod to AC at +2. I figure by level 3 or 4, they have at least scale mail, for AC of 16 (with Dex 14+), or AC 18 if they pick up a shield to go wtih it. Even getting half plate isn't out of the question by level 5 or 6. That'd push their AC up another point.

Edit: Since my proposal gives mage armor as a warlock spell, Armor of Shadows can be repurposed, too. Or call the new Invocation "Eldritch Armor." Either way -


Armor of Shadows
Your Patron's power suffuses armor and shields you wear, lightening them and giving you a knack with them. You gain proficiency with medium armor and shields. When wearing them, they take on minor cosmetic flourishes of your choosing appropriate to your patron.

Ah. I thought you meant they would get the spell instead of Hex Warrior/ armor proficiency.

Of course, making it an invocation creates another set of issues in that you now can't be a melee warlock until level 2 or 3, so you have to start as a totally different concept that what you intend to play. And you probably would want to lock the armor to baldelocks since it would be really good (possibly broken) for backline full-casters.

[Hael]

One obvious problem with moving various features of HexWarrior into pact of the blade, is that it instantly makes pact of the blade the best pact by a huge margin, as pact of the chain and pact of the tome are really mechanically tiny buffs.. For instance if you put shield and medium armor proficiency in pact of the blade, why would you ever NOT take that, even if you're goal was to simply blast away at the back..

Ultimately the problem is the base class itself. It's setup as a sort of hybrid caster with unusual utility, but is not really mechanically suited for any one thing. So trying to bandaid a kneejerk reaction to a problematic pact/feature of a problematic class is going to be quite difficult.

Anyway, WOTC are now in a pretty nasty position where any desirable changes/buffs to the warlock class itself (or to pact of the blade) will also automatically buff the very strong Hexblade chassis.

[jmartkdr]

One obvious problem with moving various features of HexWarrior into pact of the blade, is that it instantly makes pact of the blade the best pact by a huge margin, as pact of the chain and pact of the tome are really mechanically tiny buffs.. For instance if you put shield and medium armor proficiency in pact of the blade, why would you ever NOT take that, even if you're goal was to simply blast away at the back..

Ultimately the problem is the base class itself. It's setup as a sort of hybrid caster with unusual utility, but is not really mechanically suited for any one thing. So trying to bandaid a kneejerk reaction to a problematic pact/feature of a problematic class is going to be quite difficult.

Anyway, WOTC are now in a pretty nasty position where any desirable changes/buffs to the warlock class itself (or to pact of the blade) will also automatically buff the very strong Hexblade chassis.

I guess the best fix is a new, full class for arcane half-casters with Hexblade (and arcane archer, run knight, bladesinger, psychic warrior, dragon knight, etc) as a subclass of that. We can call the base class Eldritch Knight, since that implies both magic and weapons without really specifying what kinds of magic or weapons.

/s ... sort of. Not really.

[ZRN]

One obvious problem with moving various features of HexWarrior into pact of the blade, is that it instantly makes pact of the blade the best pact by a huge margin, as pact of the chain and pact of the tome are really mechanically tiny buffs.. For instance if you put shield and medium armor proficiency in pact of the blade, why would you ever NOT take that, even if you're goal was to simply blast away at the back..

That's why the Eldritch Armor invocation (requiring pact of the blade) is a cool solution to the proficiency issue.

[Petrocorus]

In this case, I think the number one issue for the Bladelock when it comes to stats is AC. As is, most classes require you to be good in one ability for your main thing, and often one other ability for a secondary thing. The issue for Bladelock is that without using big, powerful weapons, they are not usually good at their secondary thing, but if they invest in strength, then their AC is garbage. I think the fix here is to have Pact of the Blade help fix up their AC, in addition to giving them access to martial weapons. The simple and easy way to do this is to move the medium armor proficiency to the pact. Having decent armor is part and parcel with being a melee combatant, so in that sense, it is logical for the pact to give both. Furthermore, it makes the pact bonus more powerful, without really feeling out of line with the other pact boons.

The problem is that they would still need 14 Dex for their AC, which make using heavy weapons very difficult with point-buy.
I think that may be the issue they were trying to solve with the Cha-mod to attacks.
If we remove the synergy feature then:
- We need to give them heavy armor prof to let them go for full Str builds (and they would still be MAD) but that would be maybe too good.
- Or we need to decide they are not supposed to go for Str build any more than the Sword/Valor Bard or the Bladesinger. Fine by me, but not sure that's the design intent behind Pact of the Blade (and hence Hexblade).



One obvious problem with moving various features of HexWarrior into pact of the blade, is that it instantly makes pact of the blade the best pact by a huge margin, as pact of the chain and pact of the tome are really mechanically tiny buffs..
I'm not sure about this. Chain and Tome can have really big utility. Including in combat.
An invisible flying intelligent familiar can overcome many exploration/scouting difficulties and can be useful in combat (reloading weapons, giving potion of healing on fallen PC, Help actions, etc).
3 additional cantrips can be big, notably if Guidance and Shillelagh are among them. And Tome gives you Book of Ancient Secret that open to a whole lot of other things.

[Tanarii]

I think the two biggest issues to address with Hexblade are (baring the flavor mess that it is) its overly frontloaded start, and the fact that exists primarily as a Pact of the Blade fix. So I think the most important thing to do if you are fixing it is to take something that it gets early and move it over to the Pact of the Blade. Now, I know in the OP you did that with Cha for attacks, but that is not the route I would go, mainly because I don't think Cha for attacks should exist at all. No other class, not even the gishy subclasses like Valor Bard or Bladesinger Wizard, get to use a casting stat for attacking. Not even cantrips that let you make weapon attacks let you make them with your casting stat. The only real way to do this is with Shillelagh, and that is a cantrip that requires action economy to be used at the start of battle, can only be used with specific weaker weapons, and is only available naturally to characters who cannot get extra attack. I personally see no reason why the Warlock needs to be a weird exception that gets to use Charisma for physical. If the Blade Warlock is having issues due to needing too many stats, then the answer is to find another way to aleviate that burden.You'd have to make it Heavy armor to encourage a Str build. But if it were gated with a significant enough cost somehow, that'd be fine. Which brings me to.


That's why the Eldritch Armor invocation (requiring pact of the blade) is a cool solution to the proficiency issue.
That really might be the best solution. You can get armor, even Heavy armor, at level 3 that way, but it comes at a significant cost. Certainly if the goal is to move the Gishy-ness to pact of the blade, and leave hexblades as hemlocks instead.

Downside is now your Str/Cha Dex-dumping warlock would need to survive level 1 & 2. I mean, that's always been the issue. Also is for Valor Bards that want to get HA via Feat, or old-school Pact of the Blade warlocks that wanted to go the same route. So I guess that's nothing new.

[jmartkdr]

Downside is now your Str/Cha Dex-dumping warlock would need to survive level 1 & 2. I mean, that's always been the issue. Also is for Valor Bards that want to get HA via Feat, or old-school Pact of the Blade warlocks that wanted to go the same route. So I guess that's nothing new.

For as long as I've been in discussions about this, I haven't seen a really good answer to this issue: either you give warlocks enough stuff to be good at melee form level 1 (which either makes blast-locks too tough and/or makes dips too good), or you can't play as a melee warlock from level 1. (which is, frankly, stupid. You shouldn't change concepts on level-up.)

So it comes down to prioritizing game balance or fantasy allowance.

[Segev]

Ah. I thought you meant they would get the spell instead of Hex Warrior/ armor proficiency.

Of course, making it an invocation creates another set of issues in that you now can't be a melee warlock until level 2 or 3, so you have to start as a totally different concept that what you intend to play. And you probably would want to lock the armor to baldelocks since it would be really good (possibly broken) for backline full-casters.

I also add mage armor as a spell. Available at level 1. So the Warlock who wants to play a gish can take that at level one, along with potentially eldritch curse, and play a lot like a level 1 hexblade. Not as strong, though, so it is a nerf for the straight-up hexblade-style gish. He's missing out on other spell choices. Though he at least gets a cooler Patron, thematically, and whatever powers that Patron gives him.

At level 2, if you're going full "replacement hexblade," you'd drop mage armor for another spell known (as you may do one of every level of Warlock), and pick up Armor of Shadows, letting you don medium armor and pick up a shield.

At level 3, you can go Pact of the Blade for martial weapons to be added to your choice of potential things you're proficient with.

Now, an issue with the hexblade cantrip is that it is not jsut dippable, but accessible via feat. Your paladin can become SAD with Magic Initiate or (again) a Warlock dip, but now he's dipping for the cantrip rather than for the Patron. Maybe I need to limit hexblade to simple melee weapons and Pact Weapons. Sure, the paladin can still dip for that, or take Magic Initiate for it, but he's only getting SAD on Simple Weapons, now. This may or may not matter. Of course, if it doesn't matter, then shillelagh poses the same issue, since he can get SAD on a quarterstaff, which is as good as any other simple weapon he could use hexblade on.

This makes Pact of the Blade have a hidden extra perk from its pact weapon being a valid target for hexblade no matter what. Of course, at that point, you may as well just make the Cha-use a Pact Blade feature rather than a cantrip. Unless the cantrip can do more for you later on. This takes some thought.



Now, I don't know that Armor of Shadows, even granting medium armor and shields, is really all that broken on back-line warlocks. It's still an invocation slot, and franky, the mage armor version of it was really, really lame. If it weren't, then there'd have been no need to give gishlocks the Hexblade Patron's improved armor access.

[MThurston]

Still not sure why the complaints. Hexvkade doesn't need anything. Sure Blade is the pact to really go but the others are workable.

[Segev]

Still not sure why the complaints. Hexvkade doesn't need anything. Sure Blade is the pact to really go but the others are workable.

It's not that Hexblade "needs something." At least, not mechanically.

Hexblade is too good for one specific thing, and makes things too dippable. That's the mechanical complaint.

My biggest gripe is that it's got the lamest, weakest Patron fluff, and that it is so poorly tied to mechanics. If you've got a sapient weapon as your Patron, you should be getting that weapon as part of the deal. You should be the Black Blade Magus, or Pinpin from Wakfu, carrying a magical weapon that grants you power as your primary means of leveling.

That would step all over the Pact of the Blade, and not really line up with that being a Pact Boon, though. If Hexblade is to be a Patron, they need to utterly scrap Pact of the Blade and expand that boon into a full Patron, with your Pact Blade being something you get at level 1 because it's your Patron.

Instead, we have a Pact Boon option that was considered underpowered (no comment on whether that's true or not) and thus they made a Patron to patch it, while kind-of sort-of pretending that it's meant to be a general Patron. As if taking any other Patron with Pact of the Blade, or any other Pact Boon with Hexblade, was really a good idea. (Again, going with their premise that Pact of the Blade was underpowered as it was.)

And the "sentient weapon" you get as your Patron? Not ever going to be your pact weapon even if you do take the appropriate boon. Then it also gets a weirdly random "specter of guy you killed" as a minion. Which kind-of works, if you don't look too hard, with the fluff that maybe your Patron weapon is from the Shadowfell?


So, the problems are fluff and mechanics, and how the one is too lame and the other too strong. And how neither mesh well with the other. hence the attempt to fix it.

My own attempt is done by adding things to the Warlock's spell and invocation selections to patch what apparently Pact of the Blade needs over to let it be a smooth gish progression from level 1 through 3, and beyond.

[Luccan]

I don't think the issue is fluff weakness so much as fluff confusion. They had a more Raven Queen focused patron in UA, but they scrapped it (presumably for being too specific to a single entity in D&D) and grafted some of that on Hexblade, hence the dead guy. Then there's the original Hexblade from 3e, which forms the basis for it being a gish, and the sentient weapon fluff (which I actually think makes sense if Hexblade is going to be a Warlock and not basically a half-casting sorcerer). None are bad ideas in themselves, they're just forced together and implemented poorly

I think you can make the Hexblade apply to a variety of patrons, but that's mostly because the fluff is so confused they forgot to tie it to most of the mechanics. In that way I think its default is actually a pretty good basis for fluffing a Warlock however the heck you want, but that's more silver lining than inherently good design

[Segev]

I don't think the issue is fluff weakness so much as fluff confusion. They had a more Raven Queen focused patron in UA, but they scrapped it (presumably for being too specific to a single entity in D&D) and grafted some of that on Hexblade, hence the dead guy. Then there's the original Hexblade from 3e, which forms the basis for it being a gish, and the sentient weapon fluff (which I actually think makes sense if Hexblade is going to be a Warlock and not basically a half-casting sorcerer). None are bad ideas in themselves, they're just forced together and implemented poorly

I think you can make the Hexblade apply to a variety of patrons, but that's mostly because the fluff is so confused they forgot to tie it to most of the mechanics. In that way I think its default is actually a pretty good basis for fluffing a Warlock however the heck you want, but that's more silver lining than inherently good design

The Hexblade Bladepact Warlock in my game has a Hag as his patron. Just to lend credence to your "could be anything" theory.

[jas61292]

The problem is that they would still need 14 Dex for their AC, which make using heavy weapons very difficult with point-buy.
I think that may be the issue they were trying to solve with the Cha-mod to attacks.
I we remove the synergy feature then:
- We need to give them heavy armor prof to let them go for full Str builds (and they would still be MAD) but that would be maybe too good.
- Or we need to decide they are not supposed to go for Str build any more than the Sword/Valor Bard or the Bladesinger. Fine by me, but not sure that's the design intent behind Pact of the Blade (and hence Hexblade).

Personally, as I have mentioned a number of times elsewhere, I don't think the design intent for Pact of the Blade was ever to be a good, functional gish. Warlock is far enough away from being a melee combatant that to make it so would be far beyond the bounds of a simple Pact Boon. I think the main reason we got a Hexblade that was so poorly designed is because people failed to realize that the point of Pact of the Blade was to give the Warlock a non magical option when caught in melee, and thus make them simply unafraid of it, kinda like a Valor Bard. Because people didn't realize the Pact of the Blade was not supposed to be a true gish, they complained about how bad a gish it was. And because they complained, Wizards of the Coast published Hexblade to "fix" it. Personally, I think Pact of the Blade was fine as it was before Hexblade, and all of this is a bit unnecessary. But ultimately, that is a different conversation.

In terms of the Armor, I don't actually think its as big a deal as its made out to be. With light armor, being a Bladelock means having an AC of 12+Dex at best. With medium armor, that becomes 15+Dex. No, that is not ridiculously high, especially if you go strength based and don't have super high dex. But I think it is plenty. You are a warlock still, not a Fighter. You have full Warlock casting. Settling for 16 AC or so is plenty, especially when that is as much as someone like a Rogue is likely to have for much of the game.

Now, I would not be against letting them have medium armor and then folding a heavy armor proficiency into an invocation or something. But I think actually giving heavy armor would be too much, and would make Pact of the Blade an ideal pick even for pure caster builds, which is going to far.

[Kane0]

I do enjoy a good 'brewing exercise.

I subscribe to the belief that the Hexblade was created purely to correct the laclustre nature of the PHB blade boon, and was an overcorrection performed at the subclass level rather than tacking the problem directly. As such the thematics played secodn fiddle to the mechanics which made the entire thing suffer more.

Breaking down all the aspects of the Blade pact, associated invocations and Hexblade benefits:
1: Weapon summoning
2: Weapon counting as magic
3: Weapon becoming +1
4: Cha to damage with weapon attacks
5: Extra Attack
6: Smites
7: Curse/extra Hex
8: Weapon/Armor/Shield profs
9: Cha as attack stat
10: Reanimating your victims
11: Miss chance from cursed targets
12: Moving Curse

That's quite a bit! We won't need to add anything new, just rearrange these pieces. Good thing we have invocations as a bit of a 'pressure release valve'.

So one important thing to keep in mind is we want Blade Pact to be a valid choice for all gishlocks, not just one subclass. Otherwise, why have it as one of the three pact boon options? To whit, we cannot lock core gish functionality behind
The other thing to keep in mind is when these things come online. Level 1 is Patron feature, level 2 is Invocations and level 3 boon, followed by another invocation at 5 and patron feature at 6. We want minimum viable product at level 2-3 and full base functionality by level 5-6.

So lets sort through what we want where:
Blade Pact: 1, 9
Subclass: 7, 6, 11, 12
Invocations (Blade pact): 2/3, 8
Invocations (blade pact + level 5): 5
Invocations (blade pact + level 9): 4
10 is pretty left-field, lets just leave that as an invocation not connected to Blade pact.

Now some might potentially have a problem with changing their primary attack stat at level 3 but I don't think it's that big a deal, after all other gishes have to wait a little longer for some features like and your average warlock will want some decent Str and/or dex anyways, so you'll only be one or two points behind for those levels. Plus you still have cantrips (including melee cantrips!) from level 1 if you aren't comfortable using a secondary stat for your attacks.

Then from there it's just a case of tweaking those features to better fit and adjusting the flavor to better hold it all together.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Maybe add proficiency with martial weapons to add to the flavor, otherwise the 1st-level ability gives no hints this subclass is supposed to be a gish.
"You can use the same stat for casting spells and making melee attacks" is a pretty big hint that this is a gish.

Not sure why that's the case. To make Pact of the Blade competitive as a Warlock build, it'd need a lot more invocations than your other options, as Pact of the Blade's value is tied into Actions and Damage (which have to find a way to scale) while Tome and Chain both grant Utility options that maintain their value through all levels of play.

Personally, I'd move all of the proficiencies to Pact of the Blade, move Hex Warrior to Pact of the Blade, change Hexblade to be a curse-based Patron that focuses on specific targets (similar to Vengeance Paladin), curses, and retaliation effects. Worst-case scenario, a full Pact of the Blade build turns someone into a squishier Paladin with better casting, and Hexblade maintains its role as a damage-focused Warlock Patron but with an actual theme.

This plays into the whole "curse" theme the Hexblade's specific invocations all center around, and makes it so that you now have 6 melee and 6 caster builds out of Warlock, instead of 1 melee and 5 casters.

Having Hexblade be the primary option for a melee Warlock seems like a broken solution to a problem in the first place, and repeating it for the sake of caution seems kinda silly when doing nothing is an option.
I agree although I would also remove the +Proficiency to damage since no other class gets a similar mechanic. Maybe make it equivalent to Rage damage if you really think it needs that kind of damage boost, or something else entirely like "disadvantage to attack any target besides the Hexblade" or something comparable to that (but weaker than +Prof to damage).


Still not sure why the complaints. Hexvkade doesn't need anything. Sure Blade is the pact to really go but the others are workable.
What it "needs" is less stuff at level 1 - either less stuff entirely, or to have its features spread out over more levels.

[Petrocorus]

and the sentient weapon fluff
Which remind me more of the Bloodlust game than anything i've seen in other edition of D&D.



Personally, as I have mentioned a number of times elsewhere, I don't think the design intent for Pact of the Blade was ever to be a good, functional gish. Warlock is far enough away from being a melee combatant that to make it so would be far beyond the bounds of a simple Pact Boon.

I disagree with this.

The Blade Pact gives you a free counting-as-magic weapon that can be of any type and a free proficiency to go with it.
It is required to access the pseudo Extra Attack feature at level 5 and the damage boost at level 12. Note this is quite consistent with Fighter and Pally Extra Attack and damage boost at level 11.
This is very clearly a melee option intended to allow the Warlock to go in melee with some efficiency, not just to be a little less in trouble if he ever gets in melee. And it's already clear in the name, you're supposed to be a blade user.

An average non-gish caster who gets in melee with his 14 or 15 AC wants nothing else than getting OUT of melee. The basic Wizard/Sorcerer melee option is Misty Step.

Compare this with the other arcane caster melee options. Sword, Valor, Blasesinger, they all have consistence in their features. Weapon Proficiencies, armor proficiencies and/or AC boost, Extra Attacks, damage boost at higher level. This is consistent within the subclass and with martial classes. Even if they end up casting more than going into melee at higher level, they still benefit from their AC and other features.

The Bladelock gets the weapon proficiency, the Extra Attack, the damage boost but not the armor proficiency/ AC boost. Unless they are Hexblade. The Pact even hinders your melee capability because you need to waste an action to summon your weapon, and you're not proficient with a mundane version of it until you get a real magical one that you can bind.

So, it is a melee focused option, but badly made because it forgot something essential. And fixing it with a Patron is bad because a Pact Boon is clearly intended to be mixed with any Patron to create an original combination. Is there any Patron that's as necessary for Tome or Chain as the Hexblade for Blade? Not to mention that giving the AC boost to the melee Patron make it a too good Patron for any Warlock.



I subscribe to the belief that the Hexblade was created purely to correct the laclustre nature of the PHB blade boon, and was an overcorrection performed at the subclass level rather than tacking the problem directly.
Which is very consistent with the writers' method for fixing basically any issue from the PHB.

[Luccan]

Which remind me more of the Bloodlust game than anything i've seen in other edition of D&D.


As some form of patron, I assume. Because sentient weapons have been a thing in D&D for decades. Some of them can even influence a character's actions, which is basically what a patron wants but historically they haven't been as equitable in their dealings.

[Petrocorus]

As some form of patron, I assume. Because sentient weapons have been a thing in D&D for decades. Some of them can even influence a character's actions, which is basically what a patron wants but historically they haven't been as equitable in their dealings.
Yes.
In D&D, Sentient weapon try to influence their wielder, and can impart powers to them (depending on the edition) but IIRC they never are the whole purpose or only source of power of your character/class.
I kinda remind the Legacy Champion from one splatbook for 3.5, though.

[sithlordnergal]

Hmmm, that's decent, though I think we should keep the Armor and Weapon proficencies at a lower level though, because that's not really what breaks the Hexblade. Here's what I would do:

Level 1 - Hexblade's Curse
Level 2- Gain Medium Armor and Shields, plus Martial Weapons
Level 3 - take Pact of the Blade if you want Cha-based melee attacks
Level 6 - You learn the Hex spell if you do not already know it, and it does not count against Warlock spells known. Furthermore, the Hex spell is not a Concentration spell for you.
Level 10 - Armor of Hexes
Level 14 - Master of Hexes


I have my reasons for this sort of set up:

-First, you'll notice I put Medium Armor, Shields, and Martial Weapon proficiency at level 2. This is on par with the Bladesinger, and helps break up the power of that 1 level Hexblade dip Yes, it does give the Hexblade something at every level from 1 to 6, but I feel that's more of a feature, not a bug. If you have the Hexblade gaining something almost every level from 1 to 3 then you kind of discourage dipping, because players that want to multiclass will always be 1 level away from something good they can add to their build

- The next big thing is that I got rid of Extra Attack, and gave the Hexblade the Hex spell without concentration. First, I feel being able to cast Hex without it being a concentration spell fits a Hexblade better than summoning a Specter or gaining Extra Attack. Second, its a decent replacement to summoning a Specter without potentially being extremely OP like Extra Attack could be. Not to mention, I feel Hex shouldn't be a Concentration spell in the first place. Its not good enough to be one, not when you only have 2 spell slots per encounter for most of your career and so many better Concentration spells.

On the subject of Extra Attack...As much as I hate it, I don't think you would be able to put Extra Attack on any of the Warlock pacts due to the Invocations associated with Pact of the Blade. While I do feel Pact of the Blade is one of the weaker pacts, Lifedrinker and Eldritch Smite are powerful options...and having a Pact that give you a free Extra Attack could cause trouble since now you don't have to spend that extra invocation on it.

Not to mention it would also give every other Pact access to Extra Attack, which kind of steps on the toes of Pact of the Blade. Why bother with it when you can be a Pact of the Chain and have Extra Attack. You could get your Familiar to make an attack and still be able to attack on the same turn...which also gets into Beastmaster territory.

[Tanarii]

Personally, as I have mentioned a number of times elsewhere, I don't think the design intent for Pact of the Blade was ever to be a good, functional gish. Warlock is far enough away from being a melee combatant that to make it so would be far beyond the bounds of a simple Pact Boon. I think the main reason we got a Hexblade that was so poorly designed is because people failed to realize that the point of Pact of the Blade was to give the Warlock a non magical option when caught in melee, and thus make them simply unafraid of it, kinda like a Valor Bard. Because people didn't realize the Pact of the Blade was not supposed to be a true gish, they complained about how bad a gish it was. And because they complained, Wizards of the Coast published Hexblade to "fix" it. Personally, I think Pact of the Blade was fine as it was before Hexblade, and all of this is a bit unnecessary. But ultimately, that is a different conversation.
Very much agree.

But that doesn't mean that toning down and fixing the Hexblade to where it is viable for a DM to allow in a Tier 1 and early Tier 2 campaign without breaking things is a bad idea. And while you're at it, you can give Pact of the Blade Boon a little polish to address those that want a little more something with it.

Kind of like figuring out how to make Rangers work for those that feel the it is a little lacking. Sane DMs won't allow the UA alt-Ranger at their table. But it's possible to do something like take a nugget from it, such as allowing Natural explorer benefits except the expertise-alike to apply to any natural terrain.

[Sorinth]

Maybe the problem with classes dipping Hexblade so that they become SAD isn't a problem with Hexblade but a problem with other classes being MAD.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Maybe the problem with classes dipping Hexblade so that they become SAD isn't a problem with Hexblade but a problem with other classes being MAD.

If Charisma wasn't already a very strong offensive stat before this, I might have agreed with you. Even before this the other Charisma based classes were strong enough, this ability to become SAD only reinforces that strength instead of letting them have just a bit of weakness.

All it really did was make it easy to drastically improve already good classes.

[jas61292]

Maybe the problem with classes dipping Hexblade so that they become SAD isn't a problem with Hexblade but a problem with other classes being MAD.

I don't really think this is the case. Most classes want one main ability, one secondary ability, and Constitution. The only ones that don't are guys like Fighter and Barbarian where the secondary ability IS Contitution. Everyone else typically wants one mental stat for their core abilities, and either Strength or Dex for defense as well as for offense if they are choosing to use an offense that is not part of their main abilities. Wizards want Dex because their armor situation is really bad without it. Clerics want either Strength or Dex for their AC.

While the exact level of importance of stats can vary (Monk, for example, having a higher need for its secondary than most), its almost universally true that you have one primary, one secondary, and Con, or are a pure mundane for whom Con is your secondary. And I don't think anyone every accused those mundanes of being overpowered.

The problem with Hexblade is that people want to use strength weapons as a Warlock, when Warlock is clearly a Cha primary, Dex secondary. Trying to use Strength thus extends them to being 4 ability dependent, which is bad. But the fix, if you deem one is needed and that it is wrong for them to be limited to Dex, is to fix their Armor situation to bring them back to only needing 3 stats. Making them Cha dependent does technically bring them back down to 3, but it also makes them the only class in the game to have a secondary focus use the primary stat, which is out of line with every other class.

Dipping then becomes attractive, not because having to use a secondary ability for things is bad, but because getting to use your primary ability for more things is even better, especially as it means a single ASI is drastically more powerful.

[HappyDaze]

Making them Cha dependent does technically bring them back down to 3, but it also makes them the only class in the game to have a secondary focus use the primary stat, which is out of line with every other class.


This was true until the Battle Smith version of the Artificer appeared, but it doesn't come online until 3 levels into the class so it's not as dippable.

[jas61292]

This was true until the Battle Smith version of the Artificer appeared, but it doesn't come online until 3 levels into the class so it's not as dippable.

True. I always forget about them since I've never played with an Artificer in the group. Personally I'm not a fan of that design choice, but it is important to note that even though I think it is a bad idea, it is less egregious as it both comes online later, and is on a half caster class that gets spells slower and never gets as powerful magically.

[Sorinth]

I don't really think this is the case. Most classes want one main ability, one secondary ability, and Constitution. The only ones that don't are guys like Fighter and Barbarian where the secondary ability IS Contitution. Everyone else typically wants one mental stat for their core abilities, and either Strength or Dex for defense as well as for offense if they are choosing to use an offense that is not part of their main abilities. Wizards want Dex because their armor situation is really bad without it. Clerics want either Strength or Dex for their AC.

While the exact level of importance of stats can vary (Monk, for example, having a higher need for its secondary than most), its almost universally true that you have one primary, one secondary, and Con, or are a pure mundane for whom Con is your secondary. And I don't think anyone every accused those mundanes of being overpowered.

The problem with Hexblade is that people want to use strength weapons as a Warlock, when Warlock is clearly a Cha primary, Dex secondary. Trying to use Strength thus extends them to being 4 ability dependent, which is bad. But the fix, if you deem one is needed and that it is wrong for them to be limited to Dex, is to fix their Armor situation to bring them back to only needing 3 stats. Making them Cha dependent does technically bring them back down to 3, but it also makes them the only class in the game to have a secondary focus use the primary stat, which is out of line with every other class.

Dipping then becomes attractive, not because having to use a secondary ability for things is bad, but because getting to use your primary ability for more things is even better, especially as it means a single ASI is drastically more powerful.

Most classes don't have abilities that key off a secondary stat, the secondary stat is as you say there for defence, either more hit points or more AC. A paladin who dips Hexblade doesn't actually change that, they will still need either Strength 15 or Dexterity 14 for Plate or Half-Plate. So Str/Dex is still a secondary stat for them.

Yes not having to spread your ASIs over multiple attributes is powerful, it's one of the reasons casters are considered more powerful then non-casters. But you have to ask yourself what is the problem you are trying to fix? If it's simply you dislike people multiclassing into Hexblade the answer doesn't have to be nerf Hexblade. For example, if at certain levels Paladins increased Charisma outside of the normal ASIs so that being MAD was no longer as painful or if their aura was based off Proficiency Bonus instead of Charisma you would have much less reason to dip Hexblade.

[Lupine]

change Hexblade to be a curse-based Patron that focuses on specific targets (similar to Vengeance Paladin), curses, and retaliation effects.
Honestly, when I posted that exploding thread about why people hated hexblade, this is what got me the most. (Which, btw, told me all I needed to know by the 3rd-ish page.) The feel of the class is such that it really should be about curses, and the like. Thus, it makes sense that all the hex warrior and the like be shifted to the PoB, which more people will take now.

In addition, shifting that stuff over to make it more about curses and the like also makes the fluff a LOT easier to manage, and kinda makes sense with the other patrons planar, fey, fiends and celestial. Having a Shadowfell patron fits in there perfectly.

Now, I think that to maintain balance, we should look at the other features (which have to be stronger now.), and buff them a slight bit.
EDIT, Was Away from book, now that I'm back, I'm filling in what I missed.
I'd consider removing the requirement that it disappears after a long rest, as well as all the buffs to the specter. I do acknowledge that this could lead to a hexlock running around with an army of specters, but that's really cool as an image, and opens all sorts of re-flavors. Also, they don't have that much health, so they don't give a huge, huge buff like that.
If you really think that would be too powerful, you could create a custom stat block for cursed specters. I think the only problem with this as a solution is how easily it would lend itself to a five minute adventuring day to mass an army of specters. This could be avoided by putting a cap on the number of specters you could bind this way. Either set it (I'd say two), or link it to a non-warlock ability (Instinct tells me intelligence for this, but I have no reason for it.)

[Tanarii]

The problem with Hexblade is that people want to use strength weapons as a Warlock, when Warlock is clearly a Cha primary, Dex secondary. Trying to use Strength thus extends them to being 4 ability dependent, which is bad. But the fix, if you deem one is needed and that it is wrong for them to be limited to Dex, is to fix their Armor situation to bring them back to only needing 3 stats. Making them Cha dependent does technically bring them back down to 3, but it also makes them the only class in the game to have a secondary focus use the primary stat, which is out of line with every other class. The problem is you need HA to be Str but not Dex. Because Dex 14 is Dex secondary. And attaching Light -> HA upgrade to Pact of the Blade or subclass is ... okay actually it might be on par with Medium + Shield.

So that might be a more elegant solution than Medium + Shield. Because many folks (apparently including me) feel you must have Dex at a 14 with that combination. I mean, intellectually I recognize it's not required. OTOH HA is AC 16 'base' vs Dex 8 being AC 14 for medium + shield. Although I'm not sure what score value to balance the comparison point around to be honest. Dex 10 as normal for NPCs? Dex 12 as your 4th stat value?

[Segev]

The problem is you need HA to be Str but not Dex. Because Dex 14 is Dex secondary. And attaching Light -> HA upgrade to Pact of the Blade or subclass is ... okay actually it might be on par with Medium + Shield.

So that might be a more elegant solution than Medium + Shield. Because many folks (apparently including me) feel you must have Dex at a 14 with that combination. I mean, intellectually I recognize it's not required. OTOH HA is AC 16 'base' vs Dex 8 being AC 14 for medium + shield. Although I'm not sure what score value to balance the comparison point around to be honest. Dex 10 as normal for NPCs? Dex 12 as your 4th stat value?

Maybe it's just because it's late, but I'm drawing a blank. What's "HA" in this context?

[Luccan]

Maybe it's just because it's late, but I'm drawing a blank. What's "HA" in this context?

Heavy armor. To be a purely strength focused character, you have to be able to wear heavy armor, presumably because anything less than a 14 Dex in medium armor is cutting into your potential AC by a fair bit

[Segev]

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

Charisma and Dexterity. What’s the third stat they “must have” if Strength is obviated?

Frankly, if you’re going to say they can’t have only two stats they need, then you also need to eliminate finesse weapons from their arsenal. A rapier bladepact warlock could do Dexterity primary and still do d8s, carry a shield, and wear light armor for medium-armor-plus-shield-like ACs; a secondary Charisma means they’re not using eldritch blast, most likely, as their primary ranged choice, but even if they did, a 14 in it would leave them respectably accurate when range is of secondary concern.

Therefore, Charisma to hit and damage with a cantrip cast on their blade or via class feature (even the pact blade itself) isn’t that big of a deal. Medium armor encourages Dex 14, making it a secondary.

And I’m missing whatever tertiary they have that makes str a fourth stat they need if they can’t put cha on their weapon.

[Kane0]

Its almost always Con

[Tanarii]

Basically with Vuman and standard array:

S16 C14 Ch14 non-SAD + Heavy AC 16 + two handed weapon
Vs
D14 C14 Ch16 SAD + Medium&Shield AC 16 + one handed weapon

IMO the former feels more like the GISH most people seem to want. From what I've seen.

(with point buy the first can be Ch16 and the latter C16)

OTOH when I write it out like that, I come right back to "hey look it's a fighter with full casting". :smallyuk:

[jmartkdr]

Charisma and Dexterity. What’s the third stat they “must have” if Strength is obviated?



The answer to your question is Constitution, because 5 hp per level is not a lot.

The design goal here would be: you should be able to make this class work with either strength or dex - at least one is fine, but you shouldn't need both for any particular weapon of choice. Like how fighters don't need both; they can be strength-based or dex-based.

The way fighters (and paladins and clerics) do this is by wearing heavy armor. If you have heavy armor, you can dump dexterity and still be fine (it's still good, but you no longer need it).

The way to make it so not all hexblades need a good number for dex is to give them access to heavy armor. Note that "access to" is not free proficiency; an invocation is fine. (except that this screws over level 1 and probably 2 warlocks.)

[Segev]

The answer to your question is Constitution, because 5 hp per level is not a lot.

The design goal here would be: you should be able to make this class work with either strength or dex - at least one is fine, but you shouldn't need both for any particular weapon of choice. Like how fighters don't need both; they can be strength-based or dex-based.

The way fighters (and paladins and clerics) do this is by wearing heavy armor. If you have heavy armor, you can dump dexterity and still be fine (it's still good, but you no longer need it).

The way to make it so not all hexblades need a good number for dex is to give them access to heavy armor. Note that "access to" is not free proficiency; an invocation is fine. (except that this screws over level 1 and probably 2 warlocks.)

I would argue that, at levels 1 and 2, a 13 AC is not particularly bad. This might mean you can't DUMP dex, but you're still probably fine with a 10 or 11. And really, with an Invocation, we're talking about level one, only. By level 2, you can get to Medium and Shields.

In fact, D&D 5e seems to think it's probably okay for characters to switch from medium to heavy armor somewhere around level 4, since non-multiclass, you either get it from your class at level 1, or you take a feat for it.

Warlock Invocations can be weird; would it be broken for Armor of Shadows to make you pick EITHER "medium armor and shield prof" XOR "heavy armor prof?" Or do they really need shield + heavy armor? Or maybe take it twice for both (making heavy armor + shield a 2-invocation investment)?

[Zalabim]

Basically with Vuman and standard array:

S16 C14 Ch14 non-SAD + Heavy AC 16 + two handed weapon
Vs
D14 C14 Ch16 SAD + Medium&Shield AC 16 + one handed weapon

IMO the former feels more like the GISH most people seem to want. From what I've seen.

(with point buy the first can be Ch16 and the latter C16)

OTOH when I write it out like that, I come right back to "hey look it's a fighter with full casting". :smallyuk:

Dex 14, medium armor, and a shield is probably starting with 18 AC, and can upgrade that to 19.

Then a D16 C14 Ch 14 non-SAD Finesse gish could have 14-15 AC in light armor, 16-17 with a shield, or use improved pact weapon and choose between rapier/longbow for melee and ranged both on Dexterity.

[jas61292]

I would argue that, at levels 1 and 2, a 13 AC is not particularly bad. This might mean you can't DUMP dex, but you're still probably fine with a 10 or 11. And really, with an Invocation, we're talking about level one, only. By level 2, you can get to Medium and Shields.

In fact, D&D 5e seems to think it's probably okay for characters to switch from medium to heavy armor somewhere around level 4, since non-multiclass, you either get it from your class at level 1, or you take a feat for it.

Warlock Invocations can be weird; would it be broken for Armor of Shadows to make you pick EITHER "medium armor and shield prof" XOR "heavy armor prof?" Or do they really need shield + heavy armor? Or maybe take it twice for both (making heavy armor + shield a 2-invocation investment)?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that they should not get Shield proficiency at all. Of all the arcane full caster "gish" subclasses, the only one that gets shields is Valor Bard, who doesn't really get any offensive bonuses for themselves beyond using martial weapons and getting extra attack. Frankly, if we are talking about Hexblade, who certainly does get offensive bonuses, the better comparison is Swords Bard, who not only does not get shields, but also does not get all martial weapons and only gets medium armor. I'm personally not entirely sure why that level of defense is fine for the Swords bard but considered too weak for the Warlock.

Ok, ok, I do know why. Its because people want to use strength. Still, I don't see why that is a desire that should be indulged. You want to do that, multiclass, imo.

[Tanarii]

Or point buy and standard human with Medium Armor and no shield?
Str/Dex/Con/Wis/Cha 14, Int 11 :smallamused:

[Segev]

Or point buy and standard human with Medium Armor and no shield?
Str/Dex/Con/Wis/Cha 14, Int 11 :smallamused:

I'm not seeing the point you're trying to make with this. Could you please elaborate? (It's possible there's context from prior posts that I'm not correctly connecting to this one.)

[Tanarii]

I'm not seeing the point you're trying to make with this. Could you please elaborate? (It's possible there's context from prior posts that I'm not correctly connecting to this one.)
Four attribute dependency Str/Dex/Con/Cha of at least 14. Standard Human is an easy way to get that.

[Petrocorus]

Frankly, if you’re going to say they can’t have only two stats they need, then you also need to eliminate finesse weapons from their arsenal. A rapier bladepact warlock could do Dexterity primary and still do d8s, carry a shield, and wear light armor for medium-armor-plus-shield-like ACs; a secondary Charisma means they’re not using eldritch blast, most likely, as their primary ranged choice, but even if they did, a 14 in it would leave them respectably accurate when range is of secondary concern.

Therefore, Charisma to hit and damage with a cantrip cast on their blade or via class feature (even the pact blade itself) isn’t that big of a deal. Medium armor encourages Dex 14, making it a secondary.

The issue of Dex builds are twofold.

First, the AC.
Light Armor: At low levels: Leather + 16 Dex = AC 14

At higher levels: Studded Leather + 20 Dex = AC 17

Medium Armor: At low levels: Chain Shirt+ 14 Dex = AC 15

At higher levels: Breastplate + 14 Dex = AC 16

Or: Half-plate + 14 Dex = AC 17 and disadvantage to Stealth.

Heavy Armor: At low levels: Chainmail + 13 Strength = AC 16 and disadvantage to Stealth.

At higher levels: Fullplate + 15 Strength = AC 18 and disadvantage to Stealth.

So, it much easier to optimise your AC with a Str build than with a Dex build, especially if you want to use this Dex for Stealth.

Second is the damage.
Best finesse weapon: The D8 Rapier.
Best heavy weapon: The 2D6 Maul and Greatsword and the D10 Polearms.

And PAM and GWM obviously works only with Strength weapons.

So with a Dex build, you'll have more versatility and more skills, but you'll have a significant disadvantage in AC and damage.
Hex Warrior breaks this by allowing to use heavy weapon (and damage feats) with a lower costs.



I'm personally not entirely sure why that level of defense is fine for the Swords bard but considered too weak for the Warlock.

One argument that could be made is that the Bard is a full caster while the Warlock is not really a full caster.
I don't know if this is the intent, but i think this is debatable.

[Segev]

Even if you go Str > Dex > Con > Cha, you can take Warlock spells that don't require spell attacks or offer saving throws and be a pretty effective gish. In fact, most of the gish spells (not all; the SCAG cantrips in particular belie this) do things like armor of Agathys and don't care what your charisma is.

[Akal Saris]

I actually think that the best "fix" would be to make charisma-to-hit/dmg easier to get for all classes. If you could get it by taking a special background that gives you it as a boon in place of the 1 or 2 skills, for example, then players could easily get the ability that they want without shoehorning warlock levels into their builds.

[Segev]

I actually think that the best "fix" would be to make charisma-to-hit/dmg easier to get for all classes. If you could get it by taking a special background that gives you it as a boon in place of the 1 or 2 skills, for example, then players could easily get the ability that they want without shoehorning warlock levels into their builds.

So, a new Warlock cantrip, which would be accessible by Magic Initiate, perhaps?

Hexblade
Transmutation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a melee weapon)
Duration: 1 minute
The weapon you are holding is imbued with your Patron's power. For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of attacks using that weapon. The weapon also becomes magical, if it isn’t already. The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon. If you have Pact of the Blade, you can cast this spell on your Pact Weapon as part of making an attack with it, and your Pact Weapon is a valid target for this spell no matter its form.

[jmartkdr]

I would argue that, at levels 1 and 2, a 13 AC is not particularly bad. This might mean you can't DUMP dex, but you're still probably fine with a 10 or 11. And really, with an Invocation, we're talking about level one, only. By level 2, you can get to Medium and Shields.

In fact, D&D 5e seems to think it's probably okay for characters to switch from medium to heavy armor somewhere around level 4, since non-multiclass, you either get it from your class at level 1, or you take a feat for it.

Warlock Invocations can be weird; would it be broken for Armor of Shadows to make you pick EITHER "medium armor and shield prof" XOR "heavy armor prof?" Or do they really need shield + heavy armor? Or maybe take it twice for both (making heavy armor + shield a 2-invocation investment)?

I've never seen a melee character with a 12 AC (leather armor and +1 dex), but keep in mind that a goblin would hit them 70% of the time for about half their total hp. So you'd last about 2.5 rounds, unless there's more than one enemy. Then you'd drop even sooner.

Also, if the invocation isn't locked to the Pact of the Blade (as Eldritch Armor is), then you'd see it on every warlock, because by level 6 or so it's a comparative +5 AC (studded leather to half-plate and a shield), which would be an absolute no-brainer for any warlock.

Making heavy armor an option is also fine (and also covered by the existing invocation), but it doesn't solve all issues at once - something I still haven't seen, except by stuff that creates new, even bigger issues.

[Mjolnirbear]

I moved Hex Warrior to Pact of the Blade.

Then I made the hexblade's Expanded Spell list spells that concievably could be considered curses, especially debuffs.

Then I took the "blade" part out of the name. It's now a Hexlock (like feylock or fiendlock).

[Segev]

I've never seen a melee character with a 12 AC (leather armor and +1 dex), but keep in mind that a goblin would hit them 70% of the time for about half their total hp. So you'd last about 2.5 rounds, unless there's more than one enemy. Then you'd drop even sooner.

Also, if the invocation isn't locked to the Pact of the Blade (as Eldritch Armor is), then you'd see it on every warlock, because by level 6 or so it's a comparative +5 AC (studded leather to half-plate and a shield), which would be an absolute no-brainer for any warlock.

Making heavy armor an option is also fine (and also covered by the existing invocation), but it doesn't solve all issues at once - something I still haven't seen, except by stuff that creates new, even bigger issues.

Have you ever seen anybody with mage armor and -1 dex as a meleeist? Same AC, just wondering. My proposal remains at level one just to give them access to the mage armor spell.

I updated my hexblade "fix" (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?587734-Turning-the-Hexblade-quot-Patron-quot-into-modular-powers) with things inspired by this thread. Cleaner than giving them shillelagh, I just made that hexblade cantrip. Added mage armor as a spell that any warlock may learn, then gussied up the Armor of Shadows Invocation with a use of the atunement rules to put a limit on it while making it open to any armor they care to use. Added a second armor invocation to let them be Gizmoduck.

Kept the eldritch curse spell and the Invocations that expand on it, as I like how that works to enable early Warlock Gishing but keeps it something that grows with Warlock level rather than being imminently dippable.

And remember, all of this is without specifying Patron, so they get some other Patron's gifts on top of these. And they can pick and choose amongst them.

[jmartkdr]

Have you ever seen anybody with mage armor and -1 dex as a meleeist? Same AC, just wondering. My proposal remains at level one just to give them access to the mage armor spell.


I have not seen that tried, no. I have seen wizards get absolutely crushed in melee before they could escape, though.

As for the rest: it's good. I don't know if I like it a ton, but I can't see why it wouldn't work.

Honestly, I think that, ultimate;y, trying to force a class (warlock) to offer a totally different playstyle (swordmage) is asking too much. It hasn't worked for wizards or sorcerers or bards or even druids, either, although sorcadins pull it off. (Except for the flavor.) I think the only complete answer would be a brand-new base class that eats the existing attempted-gish subclasses, but WotC won't do that.

[Sception]

remove hex warrior from hexblade altogether. Add the ability as currently written but to blade boon at level 3.

That's it, that's the end of the fix. Pure hex bladelocks get a bit awkward for the first couple levels, but that's a problem shared by a lot of gishy subclasses of caster classes, and the gains in reducing hexblade's front-loadedness and opening functioning blade builds to other patrons and in making regular casty blaster locks actually pay a price for the improved armor proficiencies make the change worth it. Since we're talking homebrew anyway, if a player was committed to a single classed melee hexblade from level one, I'd let them just play the class as is to avoid those two awkward levels of pretending to be a blaster before suddenly shifting gears at level three which is the one drawback of this fix.

I'd also recommend expanding or outright replacing the patron lore, but that's a separate issue from mechanical fixes and any lore fix would be setting dependent regardless.

[Segev]

remove hex warrior from hexblade altogether. Add the ability as currently written but to blade boon at level 3.

That's it, that's the end of the fix. Pure hex bladelocks get a bit awkward for the first couple levels, but that's a problem shared by a lot of gishy subclasses of caster classes, and the gains in reducing hexblade's front-loadedness and opening functioning blade builds to other patrons and in making regular casty blaster locks actually pay a price for the improved armor proficiencies make the change worth it. Since we're talking homebrew anyway, if a player was committed to a single classed melee hexblade from level one, I'd let them just play the class as is to avoid those two awkward levels of pretending to be a blaster before suddenly shifting gears at level three which is the one drawback of this fix.

I'd also recommend expanding or outright replacing the patron lore, but that's a separate issue from mechanical fixes and any lore fix would be setting dependent regardless.

Awkward play should never be a balance point. It's a flaw, not a feature. "You can't play what you want until level N" is an issue with many things, but it's an issue, not a desirable thing!

[Sception]

Like I said, it's the one flaw of my recommended fix, and if a player is committed to playing a single classed melee hex bladelock I'd just let them play the class as written to avoid the awkwardness.

But otherwise, giving what is otherwise a backline full caster build the base AC of a melee class at level for no cost is a problem, and imo it's a bigger problem than the awkwardness of melee subclasses of caster classes having to wait for level 3 to get the abilities that let them function in melee. Blasty warlocks shouldn't get medium armor and shield proficiency at level one, and when they do get it they should pay a price for it. Hexblade as written doesn't pay for hex warrior. It's free, tacked on top of what is otherwise a full set of level 1 patron features, and that leads to one of the three big problems of hexblade as written - that it's not just the best patron for bladelocks, it's the best patron for ALL warlocks, thanks mostly to the free and massive AC boost, saving casty locks spell slots they might otherwise have to spend on personal protection.

Rolling the armor proficiencies into the pact boon means casty locks not only have to wait for it but they have to pay an actual cost for it as well, as then they don't get the improved chain familiar or books pile of cantrips. Plus all the blade specific invocations support weapon use and aren't helpful for castery builds the way the invocations for the other boons can be.

Moving hex warrior into blade boon also fixes the overly-front loaded / too dippable / too easy to fix MADness of cha gishes problem, by pushing those benefits back to level 3, early enough to still be accessible in viable multiclass builds but not giving all that for a single level dip which feels like too much return for too little investment.

Moving hex warrior into blade boon ALSO fixes the third and final big problem of hexblade - that it only fixes bladelock builds for warlocks who pick the hexblade patron. Fiendblades and Feyblades and so on are left in exactly the same awkward position that prompted the devs to introduce the hex warrior "patch" to blade boon to begin with. Move hex warrior to blade boon and hexblades still make for great bladelocks, but bladelocks of other patrons also finally actually work.

...

Again, I agree that the awkwardness this fix adds to levels one and two for actual single classed melee hex bladelock builds *is* a problem and I would let players committed to such a build play the class as originally published. Frankly, I'd give hex warrior at level 1 to committed single classed melee bladelocks of other patrons as well, though I do think blasty locks and multiclass bladelocks really should have to wait for level 3.

But otherwise, if you are a DM who thinks hexblade is too problematic for your game as is, then this is THE quick and easy fix that solves whatever problems you might have while also fixing more problems besides.


If you want a slow and hard fix, then the REAL hexblade fix is to remove hexblade and blade boon from warlock entirely, lower warlock's hit die, remove light armor proficiency, and up the casting ability somewhat - probably by adding a few regular daily slots to supplement the short rest pact slots as the character levels, following the 1/3 caster progression. While you're at it, make eldritch blast a class feature that scales with warlock level instead of a cantrip.

Then introduce an entirely separate hexblade class built as effectively a half-pact-caster with hit die, proficiencies, and class features appropriate to a melee character, including their own spell list and either no invocations or their own custom list of more reserved options. Subclasses are the same list of patrons as warlock has, but with subclass features tailored to a weapon using class.


That's a heck of a lot more work, since it requires you to re-write one class and write an entire second class from scratch, but that's the only fix that solves the core problem with both hexblade and bladelock, the same problem that plagues most 'gish' builds of full caster classes, the reason why bladesingers and valor bards arne't so much gishes as they are regular wizards and bards just with better AC. Specifically, after the first few levels full casting in and of itself is too much casting for any character concept that's intended to primarily fight with weapons.

[KorvinStarmast]

How to fix hex blade:
1. Get rid of it.
2. Add proficiency with Medium Armor (and perhaps shields, we can discuss this) when the Warlock takes Pact of the Blade at level 3.
3. Avoid the SAD model completely vis a vis Charisma.
4. Add either another cantrip or a bonus invocation at level 3 when taking Pact of the Blade.

I think that solves two issues:
The patron is badly thought out.
the 'one level dip' front loading is a mess.

And the above likely fixes Pact of the Blade. The idea to take that UA cantrip and make it pact of the blade only is IMO a good one.

[Tanarii]

How to fix hex blade:
1. Get rid of it.
2. Add proficiency with Medium Armor (and perhaps shields, we can discuss this) when the Warlock takes Pact of the Blade at level 3.
3. Avoid the SAD model completely vis a vis Charisma.
4. Add either another cantrip or a bonus invocation at level 3 when taking Pact of the Blade.

I think that solves two issues:
The patron is badly thought out.
the 'one level dip' front loading is a mess.

And the above likely fixes Pact of the Blade. The idea to take that UA cantrip and make it pact of the blade only is IMO a good one.
It fixes Pact of the Blade by making it the best pact boon for all warlocks, not just those that want to attack with melee weapons.

Maybe the trade off needs to be if you select The Hexblade Patron our Pact of the Blade Boon (whichever you're taking on Medium armor to) you cannot select the Eldritch Blast cantrip.

[Sception]

3. Avoid the SAD model completely vis a vis Charisma.

Without melee attacks based on charisma, a tomelock is better than any bladelock at melee gishing due to charisma-based Shillelagh. Because of tomelock Shillelagh Cha sad gishing was available from day one of 5e, and it was never a problem before. Bladelock should be better at melee than tomelock, and bladelock should be the boon of choice for melee based warlock multiclasses. That /only/ happens if you keep the cha melee attacks of hex warrior.

keep hex warrior as is, just put it in blade boon at level 3. Three levels of investment for cha based melee attacks was fair before hexblade. It's fair for after hexblade, too.

[KorvinStarmast]

Without melee attacks based on charisma, a tomelock is better than any bladelock at melee gishing due to charisma-based Shillelagh. Because of tomelock Shillelagh Cha sad gishing was available from day one of 5e, and it was never a problem before. Bladelock should be better at melee than tomelock, and bladelock should be the boon of choice for melee based warlock multiclasses. That /only/ happens if you keep the cha melee attacks of hex warrior.

keep hex warrior as is, just put it in blade boon at level 3. Three levels of investment for cha based melee attacks was fair before hexblade. It's fair for after hexblade, too.
A club isn't a blade. (I am not sure what you are getting at here. I was under the impression that pact of the blade had to be a blade)

Tome locks do not get medium armor.

The Hexblade Patron That's the problem from the beginning, right there. The Hexblade patron. Well, it's the root of the problem, conceptually as I see it.

[Petrocorus]

Like I said, it's the one flaw of my recommended fix, ......... of other patrons also finally actually work.

I made the same recommendation and i thank you to have made a better argument for it than me.
I almost totally agree with you.


Again, I agree that the awkwardness this fix adds to levels one and two for actual single classed melee hex bladelock builds *is* a problem and I would let players committed to such a build play the class as originally published. Frankly, I'd give hex warrior at level 1 to committed single classed melee bladelocks of other patrons as well, though I do think blasty locks and multiclass bladelocks really should have to wait for level 3.

But otherwise, if you are a DM who thinks hexblade is too problematic for your game as is, then this is THE quick and easy fix that solves whatever problems you might have while also fixing more problems besides.

This is were i disagree with you.
First, because as you said, Most gish subclasses get their things at level 2 or 3. This is not a bug but a feature of this edition. This is true for Sword/Valor Bards, Bladesingers, but also EK, 4E Monk, Shadow Monk if we count them as gish, Paladins and Rangers get their spells at level 2 and their damage boost at level 3, etc. Only Cleric are functional gish at level 1, but that's part of the definition of the class since at least BECMI. Even pure caster and pure martial are weak at level 1. So being "awkward" at level 1 or 2 is not a bug.

Two, the 2 first levels are basically a tutorial and many official campaigns start at level 3. Many DM start their homebrew campaign at level 2 or 3 judging by what i read here. So the level 1 is not an issue in many cases.

Three, the Warlock can get Armor of Shadows and Fiendish Vigor at level 2. So right at level 2 they can improve their durability. Armor of Shadow give a potentially better AC than a chain shirt. Fiendish Vigor at level 2 is a 50% bonus on max HP. More than this on actual HP. So, only the level 1 is really problematic for future bladelocks.

[Sception]

A club isn't a blade. (I am not sure what you are getting at here. I was under the impression that pact of the blade had to be a blade)

Tome locks do not get medium armor.

Pact of the blade is any melee weapon you like, but it doesn't matter because the point is that if blade boon doesn't grant cha melee attacks then tome boon is the better boon for melee locks, because tome boon *does* grant cha based melee attacks and has done so since day one of 5e.

Not getting medium armor doesn't matter for weapon using warlocks if you don't grant cha melee. Because if you don't grant cha melee, then they're going to need max dexterity for their attack rolls - strength isn't an option without heavy armor proficiency. Any character with max dexterity will have better AC in light armor than medium anyway. They'll be missing shield proficiency, which hurts, but dual wielding is a thing.

Both medium armor and shield proficiency are also fixed by a fighter dip, which is something bladelock characters are tempted towards anyway.

The armor thing is the biggest deal to non-melee, pure caster warlock builds, which is part of what's problematic about it, since they *don't* like to multiclass with warrior classes.



Also, Shillelagh doesn't just work on clubs, it also works on quarterstaffs, which is one of the weapons that works with polearm master so it's already a strong weapon choice. So yeah, if you ditch cha melee then cha gish builds who multiclass warlock, which thematically should absolutely want blade boon, end up better off with tome boon instead. Likewise, warlocks who want to melee, who again should absolutely want to take blade boon, are instead better off taking tome boon and just dipping fighter for armor proficiencies. Or, at least, they're better off doing that provided the scag cantrips are available in your game. If not, they're probably better off taking 5 to 6 levels of paladin to get to extra attack and still want to take tome boon for cha shillelagh anyway.


Again, cha based weapon attacks are part of the game without hexblade. They were part of the game since day 1 of 5e. The problem with hex warrior isn't that it grants cha based melee attacks at all, the problem is that it grants them for free, and at first level. That's too little cost and too little investment. Move hex warrior to blade boon at level three and it's fine as is, cha melee and all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, Shillelagh doesn't just work on clubs, it also works on quarterstaffs, which is one of the weapons that works with polearm master so it's already a strong weapon choice. S.

Tome Locks do not get the extra attack invocation. Blade Locks do. I am still not sure what you are getting at. The second attack makes a difference.

Thirsting Blade
Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact of the Blade feature
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

[Sception]

First, because as you said, Most gish subclasses get their things at level 2 or 3. This is not a bug but a feature of this edition. This is true for Sword/Valor Bards, Bladesingers, but also EK, 4E Monk, Shadow Monk if we count them as gish, Paladins and Rangers get their spells at level 2 and their damage boost at level 3, etc.

Eldritch Knights, Shadow Monks, Paladins, and Rangers don't have to completely change their play style and equipment set overnight. They don't spend two levels playing one kind of character and then overnight start playing another kind of character entirely. A paladin is fighting with with weapons and wearing heavy armor from day one, same for an eldritch knight.

With the fix of moring hex warrior to level three, a hexbladelock is a fragile backline blaster at level one and two, and overnight changes to play completely differently at level three, and imo that's really super awkward. Avoiding that awkwardness pushes the character into dipping fighter or paladin at level 1, and imo you shouldn't have to dip to play a subclass build in it's intended play style from level one.


IMO, valor bards and bladesinger wizards are ALSO problematic for similar reasons. Not just because playing them as intended means a complete play style shift at level 3, but also because playing them optimally means not playing them as intended at all - they're better off if they forget weapons entirely and just play as full casters but with better AC so they can cast more spells offensively instead of defensively. Honestly, that's /also/ a problem for hexblades as written (a problem that shifting hex warrior to blade boon does somewhat fix), though it's less noticeable since the parent warlock class isn't an especially good spellcaster to begin with.



Anyway, I think we both agree that moving hex warrior to blade boon is an improvement over the current situation. But if you have a warlock in your group who commits to weapon use (for example, by not taking the eldritch blast cantrip), and to not multiclassing (at least not before level 3), then I don't think your game will suffer at all by just letting them start with hex warrior at level one.

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyway, I think we both agree that moving hex warrior to blade boon is an improvement over the current situation. Not a bad idea, overall.

5e is kind of weird, though. Clerics and Sorcerers are front loaded at level 1.
Wizards and Druids pick their specialty / school at level 2.
Barbarians, Bards, Monks, Paladins, Fighters, Warlocks, Rogues ... pick their specialization or path at level 3.

I am not sure I understand why WoTC did this, but I think part of it was the assumption that levels 1-3 are "beginning adventuring" and that players would grow into their characters .... unless they were a cleric or a sorcerer.

[Tanarii]

What I'm hearing here is an argument for fixing Shillelagh. :smallamused:
So it always uses Wisdom?

[Sception]

Tome Locks do not get the extra attack invocation. Blade Locks do. I am still not sure what you are getting at. The second attack makes a difference.

SCAG cantrips are a fully functional replacement for extra attack - though admittedly they don't work with polearm master.

The biggest issue people have seems to be with multiclass warlocks though - particularly paladin/warlocks which seem to inspire most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over hexblade SADness. Such characters already get extra attack, and typically get it before they would multiclass into hexblade anyway (since paladin/warlock builds need to start with paladin for heavy armor proficiency, and don't want to delay extra attack and aura of protection).

For single classed hexblades... even with cha melee their damage output already struggles to keep up with that of hexblades who ignore melee entirely and just spam eldritch blast like every other warlock, and blast warlocks don't give to bits about weapon attack stats. So from a single classed perspective, I'm not sure what even the problem is that you're trying to fix by removing cha melee attacks.

[Sception]

What I'm hearing here is an argument for fixing Shillelagh. :smallamused:
So it always uses Wisdom?

Did you have a problem with it before hexblade?

If not, then, again, your problem isn't that cha melee exists, just that hexblade grants it too cheaply and too soon.

[KorvinStarmast]

SCAG cantrips are a fully functional replacement for extra attack - though admittedly they don't work with polearm master. If you miss you still do no damage, even with green flame blade, but I see your point on SCAG cantrips: but is SCAG your desired PHB +1? If so, none of the XGTE invocations or cantrips are available. (AL consideration).


The biggest issue people have seems to be with multiclass warlocks though - particularly paladin/warlocks I won't comment on multi classing, as I am only really interested in fixing the Pact of the Blade. I don't think Hexblade fixed anything; I think it made problems with Pact of Blade worse, and I do not find the Hexblade patron, conceptually, to fit the other patrons in the book. Heck, the Celestial makes more sense than the Hexblade, and for that matter so does the Undying (though for me it is a bit of a reach).

[Tanarii]

That's the problem from the beginning, right there. The Hexblade patron. Well, it's the root of the problem, conceptually as I see it.
Okay. But what are your thoughts on Pact of Blade giving Medium+Shield, but you have to trade out/cannot select Eldritch Blast?


Did you have a problem with it before hexblade?

If not, then, again, your problem isn't that cha melee exists, just that hexblade grants it too cheaply and too soon.
For warlocks? Yes. I did. But I chose not to focus on SAD Cha for this thread, because I know it's not a popular choice.

Besides Warlocks are better as glass cannons even for melee locks. If it's a choice between poor armor and SAD, vs good armor and MAD, it's probably better to be the former. I know that, even if it kinda rubs me wrong.

The real problem is SAD, good armor, and also good range. Oh and let's not forget full caster on top of all that. :smallyuk:

[KorvinStarmast]

Okay. But what are your thoughts on Pact of Blade giving Medium+Shield, but you have to trade out/cannot select Eldritch Blast? That's an intriguing idea; I don't have all of my notes at present location, so I can't comment further.

What I'm hearing here is an argument for fixing Shillelagh. :smallamused:
So it always uses Wisdom?
Shillelagh is fine; please don't suggest "fixing" it. :smallsmile:

[Segev]

All of the last page or so of discussion just makes me like my fix more. It enables smooth play of a gishlock from level 1, while very strongly improving its defenses as it levels to 2, it removes the Hexblade Patron as a thing, and uses existing resources to build the character up.

You also have more freedom to modularly build it. Want to play as a caster who later goes gish? You definitely can, and don't suffer for not having picked the right Patron. Want to magically be a strong warrior thanks to your pact letting you cheat into it with magic? Lean heavily into the spell choices and Armor of Shadows invocation early on. You can mix and match your warrior and magic side with greater nuance, picking and choosing invocations and spells. And it even works without going Pact of the Blade if you don't want to. The spell choices and new Invocations support you without it, though you'll only get the extra attack if you do take that Pact Boon.

[Tanarii]

All of the last page or so of discussion just makes me like my fix more. It enables smooth play of a gishlock from level 1, while very strongly improving its defenses as it levels to 2, it removes the Hexblade Patron as a thing, and uses existing resources to build the character up.
Having played a 4e warlock who use Eldritch Strike at-will, it should have occurred to me the simplest fix is probably a scag-alike Eldritch Strike cantrip.

The characters survival was due to high Dex and THP from Vampiric Embrace encounter power. So maybe just roll up THP generation into the Eldritch Strike cantrip?

Note: this is a "fix" as in "ditch Hexblade and make Pact of the Blade Boon work". Have the cantrip replace Eldritch Blast (or other cantrip if you didn't choose it) when you select Pact of the Blade, but otherwise be inaccessible?

[Segev]

Having played a 4e warlock who use Eldritch Strike at-will, it should have occurred to me the simplest fix is probably a scag-alike Eldritch Strike cantrip.

The characters survival was due to high Dex and THP from Vampiric Embrace encounter power. So maybe just roll up THP generation into the Eldritch Strike cantrip?

Note: this is a "fix" as in "ditch Hexblade and make Pact of the Blade Boon work". Have the cantrip replace Eldritch Blast (or other cantrip if you didn't choose it) when you select Pact of the Blade, but otherwise be inaccessible?

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding what you're asking. "This is a 'fix'" that I've written up here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?587734-Turning-the-Hexblade-quot-Patron-quot-into-modular-powers). This thread's actually inspired me to do a second pass of it.

If you already knew what I was talking about, then I misunderstood what you were saying, and I'm sorry.

The other thing I think you might've been saying/asking is about my own motives. In which case, yes, my motive here is to remove the patron while making Pact of the Blade more viable as a gish-style of play, from level 1. Hexblade-the-Patron seems, to me, to be WotC's tacit admission that they missed the mark in writing Pact of the Blade and its attendent invocations, because it kicks in at level 3 and entails too bit a play-style shift from the first two levels, unless you weren't planning on being all that strong a warrior-side gish. Now, maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but htat seems to be Hexblade-the-Patron's purpose.

And I hate the Patron as written. For its fluff more than its mechanics, but I also dislike that, mechanically, it practically says, "If you take this, you really should take Pact of the Blade, and if you're planning to take Pact of the Blade, you really should take this." It ruins by comparison any other Patron + Pact of the Blade combo, and is itself very lackluster for any Hexblade + Pact of [anything but the Blade]. Which is very sloppy design.

This thread, in particular, convinced me to go back and make the hexblade cantrip (which closely resembles shillelagh) rather than add shillelagh to the Warlock spell list. Also to adjust how I was approaching armor for them in this fix.


I like the idea of an "eldritch smite" or "strike." "Strike," I think, to avoid too much conflation with the Paladin powers. In 3.5, the Warlock could take an Eldritch Essence Invocation that let him deal Eldritch Blast damage with a melee weapon attack (adding it to the weapon's attack). It was generally pretty bad, because it combined the worst action economy of a spell and a weapon and it was melee only. Sounds like they made it much better in 4e.

I am unsure whether it should be its own cantrip that makes an eldritch blast apply to a melee weapon attack, or if it should be an Invocation that applies eldritch blast to all your Pact Weapon strikes. I'm going to write up both, here, for evaluation and discussion.

Eldritch Strike
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Target: Melee weapon touched
Components: V, S, M (a melee weapon)
Duration: One round
You charge your melee weapon with crackling energy. Make an attack action with this weapon as part of casting this spell. Until the start of your next turn, creatures hit by melee attacks you make with this weapon are also affected by a single eldritch blast (taking an additional 1d10 force damage, and possibly other effects). This cantrip qualifies you for Invocations requiring eldritch blast as a prerequisite. If the weapon leaves your hand, this spell ends.

Above is the cantrip. Below is the Invocation version.

Eldritch Strike
Prerequisite: Pact of the Blade, eldtritch blast
When you hit a creature with your Pact Weapon, the creature is also affected as if hit by one of your eldritch blasts, taking 1d10 force damage and any other effects your invocations may modify eldritch blast to deliver.



You also mentioned temp hp. I can't really think of a way to make that work with the cantrip version of eldritch strike, as I fear it might be too much to just straight-up add to it. But it could work with my fix's hexblade cantrip and the Invocation version of Eldritch Strike, if it were written like this:

Vampiric Surge
Necromancy cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Target: One creature
Components: V, S, M (a melee weapon)
Duration: 1 round (see text)
Make an attack action as part of casting this spell. The first time you hit a creature in melee with the weapon used as a material component before the start of your next turn, you gain a number of temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal on that attack. These temporary hit points vanish at the end of your next turn.



I made them go away at the end of your next turn so that you could, for example, run away without disengaging and have them absorb the OA.

Used with the hexblade cantrip and Eldritch Strike the Invocation, this could be a very potent way of spiking your hp every round. As temp hp, they won't stack round to round, but if you keep doing damage every round, you get a pretty respectable buffer of temp hp replenishing every round.

[Petrocorus]

Tome Locks do not get the extra attack invocation. Blade Locks do. I am still not sure what you are getting at. The second attack makes a difference.
Mathematically, GFB can easily be better than two attack with a D8 weapon. Even if there are more chance to do 0 damages.


Not a bad idea, overall.

5e is kind of weird, though. Clerics and Sorcerers are front loaded at level 1.
Wizards and Druids pick their specialty / school at level 2.
Barbarians, Bards, Monks, Paladins, Fighters, Warlocks, Rogues ... pick their specialization or path at level 3.

I am not sure I understand why WoTC did this, but I think part of it was the assumption that levels 1-3 are "beginning adventuring" and that players would grow into their characters .... unless they were a cleric or a sorcerer.
I remember reading that the intent was to have every classes get its subclasses at level 3, except for Sorcerer and Warlock, because their subclasses were the very origin of their powers, and Cleric who rather fall in the same situation.
Then they decided to give the subclasses at level 2 for the Druid and the Wizard because it appeared that else it would make the level 3 too big a step for this classes.


Eldritch Knights, Shadow Monks, Paladins, and Rangers don't have to completely change their play style and equipment set overnight. They don't spend two levels playing one kind of character and then overnight start playing another kind of character entirely. A paladin is fighting with with weapons and wearing heavy armor from day one, same for an eldritch knight.

Point taken.

Though EK do change a bit since they are apparently intended to do some blasting.



With the fix of moring hex warrior to level three, a hexbladelock is a fragile backline blaster at level one and two, and overnight changes to play completely differently at level three, and imo that's really super awkward. Avoiding that awkwardness pushes the character into dipping fighter or paladin at level 1, and imo you shouldn't have to dip to play a subclass build in it's intended play style from level one.


IMO, valor bards and bladesinger wizards are ALSO problematic for similar reasons. Not just because playing them as intended means a complete play style shift at level 3, but also because playing them optimally means not playing them as intended at all - they're better off if they forget weapons entirely and just play as full casters but with better AC so they can cast more spells offensively instead of defensively. Honestly, that's /also/ a problem for hexblades as written (a problem that shifting hex warrior to blade boon does somewhat fix), though it's less noticeable since the parent warlock class isn't an especially good spellcaster to begin with.

That now put the bladelock in the same situation that the melee bards up to mid level, that fine by me.



Anyway, I think we both agree that moving hex warrior to blade boon is an improvement over the current situation. But if you have a warlock in your group who commits to weapon use (for example, by not taking the eldritch blast cantrip), and to not multiclassing (at least not before level 3), then I don't think your game will suffer at all by just letting them start with hex warrior at level one.
I see your point, but i feel it would also be awkward to design the features of a class by the player's commitment to not multiclassing. That would introduce a new exception to fix the fix.
And forbidding the flagship cantrip of the class to Bladelock feel wrong too. Even pure melee warlock would like EB as a fallback range option.
It would be more in line with current design to forbid Agonizing Blast to Pact of the Blade Warlock.

[Sception]

Homebrew fixes are a patchwork of duct tape and bubblegum to begin with.

If you want a *real* fix, a deep down fix, that comes from acknowledging that *gish* doesn't work as a subclass of full caster and that hexblade/bladelock should be re-written as an entire stand alone class. Same for bladesinger - ditch it and bring back 4e's swordmage.

5e's extreme reluctance to add new classes but overeagerness to add new subclasses has resulted in a lot of builds that mechanically fail to live up to their narrative concepts, because a subclass just isnt a lot of mechanical room to work with, and an arbitrary parent class brings a lot of baggage with it, both narrative and mechanical, that results in too many concepts being shifted into really weird and poorly fitting shapes.

But that, again, is a really difficult and work intensive fix. Taking hex warrior out of hexblade and putting it in blade boon is quick and easy and addresses the main complaints well enough to move on with your life.

[Segev]

Homebrew fixes are a patchwork of duct tape and bubblegum to begin with.

If you want a *real* fix, a deep down fix, that comes from acknowledging that *gish* doesn't work as a subclass of full caster and that hexblade/bladelock should be re-written as an entire stand alone class. Same for bladesinger - ditch it and bring back 4e's swordmage.

5e's extreme reluctance to add new classes but overeagerness to add new subclasses has resulted in a lot of builds that mechanically fail to live up to their narrative concepts, because a subclass just isnt a lot of mechanical room to work with, and an arbitrary parent class brings a lot of baggage with it, both narrative and mechanical, that results in too many concepts being shifted into really weird and poorly fitting shapes.

But that, again, is a really difficult and work intensive fix. Taking hex warrior out of hexblade and putting it in blade boon is quick and easy and addresses the main complaints well enough to move on with your life.

I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with your premise. There's nothing about a "full caster" vs. a "martial" in 5e that can't be gished with the right selection of class features. The entirety of 5e's design centers around subsystems and class features, because there's no variable BAB.

[Kane0]

But that, again, is a really difficult and work intensive fix. Taking hex warrior out of hexblade and putting it in blade boon is quick and easy and addresses the main complaints well enough to move on with your life.

To he fair, here is where resides the people that consider it a fun time to overthink and completely rewrite these things. Plus given the interesting times in which we live, theres probably plenty of chances to do so.

[Zalabim]

I fundamentally think this is a solvable problem, but only when we agree on what the problem is. I highly suspect there's a solution that could fit into the existing margins in the warlock class, I.E. errata that could be added to a future printing.

So what are our goals? What the obstacles in the way of our goals? There needs to be some understanding of that in order to decide if any change brings us closer to our goals or raises new obstacles. So, if I want to turn a primary caster like a warlock into a gish, then I need them to want to use a weapon, want to get into melee, and be able to survive getting into melee. Those are my goals. If I just want them to have melee as a backup, that's a different set of priorities. In that case, I don't need them to want to get into melee, but just need them to prefer their backup weapon over escaping from melee. I think other people have this as a goal. They have different obstacles to overcome to meet their their goals.

So let me just try to make a warlock that meets my goals and see where I get tripped up. First I want to re-align some thinking. Everyone knows the warlock is a Cha-primary caster, but it's not necessarily their most important attribute. That depends on what you want to be doing, and warlock has a lot of choice on that front. The warlock has a lot of spells and abilities that don't need charisma as much, or at all. Hex and Armor of Agathys, Misty Step and Mirror Image, Gaseous Form and Tongues, Dimension Door and Shadow of Moil, Far Step and Contact Other Plane, Soul Cage or True Seeing, Force Cage or Plane Shift, Demiplane or Power Word Stun, Foresight or True Polymorph. The entire GOO Patron. I'd call this the Ranger test. The ranger needs Wisdom for their spellcasting, skills, and class features, of course. That's why it's on their multiclassing requirements. Well, not exactly. If you want to be casting Hunter's Mark and Goodberry, Spike Growth and Pass Without Trace, Conjure Animals and Plant Growth, Conjure Woodland Beings and Freedom of Movement and Guardian of Nature, Swift Quiver and Commune With Nature, the ranger isn't using their spellcasting ability at all.

So, really, the reason the warlock needs high charisma is eldritch blast. To whatever degree my gish warlock doesn't need eldritch blast, my gish warlock doesn't need as high of charisma. High charisma is a choice, for it has benefit and improves use-limited options, but it's not vital to my core combat mechanic. I could play a ranger who prioritizes STR, DEX, and CON, then WIS.

So completely without frills, here are my choices for Standard Human Warlock:

Caster
St9 De14 Co15 In11 Wi13 Ch16
AC 13 (leather armor)
HP 10 (1d8+2)
Pact Magic (1 slot)
Cantrips (Eldritch blast, pick one)
1st-level (pick two)
+4 to hit, 1d8+2 damage, 80'/320' Light Crossbow
+4 to hit, 1d4+2/1d4 damage 20'/60' Dagger (Can TWF)
+5 to hit, 1d10 damage, 120' Eldritch Blast


Dexter
St9 De16 Co15 In13 Wi11 Ch14
AC 14 (leather armor)
HP 10 (1d8+2)
Pact Magic (1 slot)
Cantrips (Pick two)
1st-level (pick two)
+5 to hit, 1d8+3 damage, 80'/320' Light Crossbow
+5 to hit, 1d4+3/1d4 damage 20'/60' Dagger (can TWF)

Haxter
St16 De14 Co15 In9 Wi11 Ch13
AC 13 (leather armor)
HP 10 (1d8+2)
Pact Magic (1 slot)
Cantrips (Pick two)
1st-level (pick two)
+5 to hit, 1d6+3/1d6 damage, 20'/60' Handaxe (can TWF)
+5 to hit, 1d4+3/1d4 damage, 20'/60' Dagger (can TWF)
Right at level 1, I see Caster has the longest range, Dexter has the best ranged damage and best AC, and Haxter has the best melee damage and no worse defense than Caster.
Gain two invocations. Caster takes Agonizing Blast and has one choice left for defense or utility. Dexter and Haxter have two free choices, but can't gain damage from any of them. Haxter still has the most damage, Dexter still has the most AC, and Caster now has the best ranged attack.Pact Boons. Caster A gets a familiar. Caster B gets Shillelagh. Dexter gets a rapier. Haxter gets a greatsword. Invocations can be changed, so Dexter takes Improved Pact Weapon. Haxter can too, but doesn't require it.
Caster B adds
+5 to hit, 1d8+3 damage Shillelagh
Dexter adds
+6 to hit, 1d8+4 damage +1 Rapier
or +6 to hit, 1d10+4 damage +1 Heavy Crossbow (action to switch)
Haxter adds
+5(6) to hit, 2d6+3(4) damage (+1) Greatsword
or +5(6) to hit, 1d10+3(4) damage, 10' reach, (+1) Glaive Dexter pulls ahead of Caster B for damage, but has to choose between better ranged or better melee because of the Action cost to switch. Haxter can improve their already leading melee damage, or not and keep more defense or utility invocations.
Ability Score Increase. Nothing surprising here, unless you want to take polearm master
Dexter gains more AC.
Cantrips improve. Thirsting Blade. Non-pact weapons get left in the dustbin.
Caster B
+7 to hit, (13) 1d8+1d8+4 Greenflame Shillelagh (8.5) 1d8+4 secondary [21.5]
+7 to hit, (19)twice 1d10+4, 120' Eldritch Blast

Dexter
+8 to hit, (19)twice 1d8+5, +1 Rapier or 150'/600' +1 Longbow
+8 to hit, (14) 1d8+1d8+5, Greenflame +1 Rapier (6.5) 1d8+2 secondary [20.5]

Haxter
+8 to hit, (24)twice 2d6+5, +1 Greatsword
+8 to hit, (21)twice 1d10+5, 10' reach, +1 Glaive
+8 to hit, (16.5)2d6+1d8+5, Greenflame +1 Greatsword (5.5) 1d8+1 secondary [22]Any of them can take greenflame blade, but probably only Caster wants to, and it's the only way in which Caster ever exceeds Dexter. Haxter is now more focused on purely melee damage.

This is the next interesting development. From level 5 to 12, Dexter/Haxter/Caster have all been at 2 expected invocations, one for their boon and one more for their standard attack, or two for their boon-as-their-standard-attack. At level 11, cantrips improve again and at level 12 Dexter and Haxter are now playing catch-up, costing another invocation, only if they also have enough charisma.

Caster 20 Charisma at level 8. Crossbow Expert at level 12
+9 to hit, (31.5)thrice 1d10+5, 120' Eldritch Blast (Crossbow Expert)
+9 to hit, (18.5) 1d8+2d8+5, Greenflame Shillelagh (14) 2d8+5 secondary [32.5]

Dexter 20 Dexterity at level 8. 16 Charisma at level 12
+10 to hit, (27)twice 1d8+9 +1 Rapier or 150'/600' +1 Longbow
+10 to hit, (22.5)1d8+2d8+9 Greenflame +1 Rapier (12) 2d8+3 secondary [34.5]

Haxter 20 Strength level 8. 15 Charisma at level 12. Unless taking Polearm Master
+10 to hit, (30)twice 2d6+8, +1 Greatsword
+10 to hit, (25/34.5)twice 1d10+7 and 1d4+7, +1 Glaive Polearm Master
+10 to hit, (24) 2d6+2d8+8, Greenflame +1 Greatsword (11) 2d8+2 secondary [35]
This is where things start to flip over. Dexter still has more AC from dexterity than the others. Caster can now have the best damage at all ranges with Eldritch Blast and Crossbow Expert. No need for the Tome to use Shillelagh. Haxter can only just keep up by taking polearm master. Dexter and Haxter are now the ones that can get a decent damage bonus from greenflame blade. At level 17, things just get worse for my gishes, as a couple more charisma is nothing compared to another cantrip improvement.

So what do I want to change? I see at level 5 that Dexter takes an action to switch between ranged and melee weapon forms, but Caster B can swap with just a bonus action to cast Shillelagh. Haxter is just seriously behind in ranged attacks at this point. Maybe add to Improved Pact Weapon that you may create your pact weapon as a bonus action, for Dexter.

All throughout, Caster and Haxter have access to all the same defenses. There's an early flexibility in using invocations for Haxter, but once the invocation expectations even up at level 5, they have access to the same amount as well. It makes a lot of sense to give Haxter extra defenses beyond what Caster can equally access. For example, if you grant medium armor and shields, then whatever AC Haxter gets, Caster gets +2 more. That's no good. If you give them the ability to equip any suit of armor regardless of proficiency, then Heavy Armor gives higher AC, and Haxter already has the strength to wear it without penalty. Caster or Dexter could also wear it, but would suffer reduced speed. This also cuts into Dexter's benefit of increased AC. If you instead give them a defensive boost (like Temp HP on hit) that's tied to the pact weapon, then Dexter and Haxter can both gain it and Caster would not. Because Dexter can equally choose between melee and ranged weapon, Haxter should be getting a better defensive benefit, much like how a Strength fighter gets higher AC from armor than a Dexterity fighter. So maybe Thirsting Blade can also grant temp hp based on the weapon's damage roll.

Level 11+ is a complete mess. A lot of people say giving Hex Warrior to Pact of the Blade fixes things. That's taking the best stuff from Haxter and Dexter and giving it to Caster. It does nothing for the half-the-game-viable warlock builds that work great for races that don't have a charisma bonus. It also fails to resolve the problem worsening at level 17. I say to go the other way and remove the charisma requirement to gain Lifedrinker's damage. That it is still yet another invocation cost could be made up by bundling benefits besides keeping up with the cantrips. For example, a true life steal to make up for when the temporary HP aren't sufficient. This healing value could be charisma modifier.

TL;DR "Just give them all Hex Warrior" makes all pact of the blade warlocks stronger, but it gives the most benefit to caster warlocks and less benefit to gish warlocks. It is a solution that makes more problems, and I'm really too tired to think more at this point.

[Sception]

I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with your premise. There's nothing about a "full caster" vs. a "martial" in 5e that can't be gished with the right selection of class features. The entirety of 5e's design centers around subsystems and class features, because there's no variable BAB.

A full caster slot progression, with a full caster's spell list, is just too much. At least, it is once you get past the lowest levels. Once you have the spell slots to be casting levelled spells with most of your actions, and to be concentrating on big, battle-changing spells in every fight, and cantrips have scaled more times than extra attack has, the plain old attack action becomes a poor use of your time.

This is why bladesinger is most effective when played as just a regular casty wizard with better AC, or why valor bard is most effective when played as just a regular casty bard with better AC, or why hexblade is most effective when played as just a regulat, eldritch blast spamming warlock with better AC.

IMO that latter point is the deepest and most fundamental problem with hexblade, and it's one that has absolutely nothing to do with making weapon attacks with a casting stat, something that wasn't a problem when tomelocks did it, was never a problem with druids and clerics with magic initiate, and isn't a problem with battlesmiths, either.

If you want gishing to work from the direction of a caster class, it needs to come at the cost of a significant portion of their casting ability. Fewer spells known & fewer spell slots, for instance, maybe a different spell list, which means a different class entirely, because all that stuff is baked into the parent class features. Or it means multiclassing. Neither of those options - writing an entire new class or designing your gishy subclass with the assumption that it will need multiclassing to function - involve adding a melee warrior's armor proficiencies to a full caster. I suppose you could steal their concentration, like if bladesong or hex warrior required concentration to maintain the effect, but imo that's too much of a cost and would be tantamount to just banning these things anyway.

Past the lowest levels, a full caster has spell slots enough for both offense and personal defense, but it's a tight balance, and the strongest thing they can be doing with their actions is casting more spells. Give them a melee class's base AC and their best action doesn't become wading into combat with a sharp stick, it's still casting spells, only now they get to cast more spells offensively since they don't need to cast mage armor or shield as often.

Take a look at cleric, the one spellcasting class that always has melee class AC and could have melee class weapon proficiencies and even melee attacks off their casting stat with a single feat or a one level dip right from the start of the edition. Look at war cleric in particular, who even gets a bunch of class features buffing their weapon attacks. Sure they might use weapon attacks at low levels, the same levels where wizards and sorcerers might be better off shooting a light crossbow than casting a cantrip, but it doesn't keep up. By the time they can be casting spirit guardians and spiritual weapon in every fight, their weapon attacks stop being meaningful, and they might be better off dodging rather than using an action to attack with a weapon. By the time cantrips have scaled twice, weapon attacks are a thing of the distant, barely remembered past.

I do think the better base AC is important for a cleric. Not for pretensions of gishing, but so they can use the spell slots other full casters devote to personal protection on the healing spells a cleric is expected to provide without cutting into their offensive slots too much. But that's what better AC means on a full caster chasis past around level 5 and certainly past level 11. It doesn't mean "I'm a warrior who also casts spells", it means "I'm a caster who casts *even more* spells." And that's why gishy subclasses of what are otherwise effectively full casters are always going to be awkward. They always end up giving the class too little to make melee combat an effective use of their time, like bladesinger or valor bard or war cleric or non-hex bladelock, or if they do give enough to make melee effective then they're going to be doing too much for a subclass, resulting in something overtuned like the hexblade.

[Yakk]

1) Give all warlocks "prof to damage 1/day on a Hex cast" at level 1. Take away from Hexblade.

2) Pact of thd Blade gets Cha-to-attack roll at 3, and adds 1/2 cha to damage. They keep str or dex to damage. Hex loses it.

Hexblade gets armor and 19-20 crit range at 1. Throw in a free cast of Hex on Hexblade's curse.

The "dex +1/2 cha" damage means that dex-locks want dex abd str-locks want str, so they aren't completely weapon incompetent at level 1-2.

[Yakk]

cantrips have scaled more times than extra attack has, the plain old attack action becomes a poor use of your time.
Fighter extra attack scales faster than Cantrips.

Paladin extra attack adds +1d8 per hit at 11; that scales faster than Cantrips.

Barbarians get critical dice, which isn't enough. Rangers get level 11 feature, which isn't enough. Monks get level 11 feature, again not enough.

Clerics don't get extra attack. Warlocks get one step of it with an invocation.

As a swords/valor bard 10 you get secrets, which is haste or holy weapon or swift quiver. You can be a pretty good combatant with those.

Cantrip scaling, other than EB, is a bit of a joke.

[Sception]

Fighter extra attack scales faster than Cantrips.

The post was talking about gish subclasses of full casters. Some of those get /an/ extra attack. None of them get more than one like the fighter does.


Paladin extra attack adds +1d8 per hit at 11; that scales faster than Cantrips.

None of them get +d8 damage to all melee weapon attacks as a passive ability like paladin does.


Barbarians get critical dice, which isn't enough. Rangers get level 11 feature, which isn't enough. Monks get level 11 feature, again not enough.

I agree all those classes don't get enough and should get better scaling to their weapon damage. However, none of them are gish subclasses of full casters either.


Clerics don't get extra attack. Warlocks get one step of it with an invocation.

Clerics of weapon domains and hex/blade Warlocks are the only 'gish subclasses of full caster classes' you mention, and they both support my statement. Toll the Dead scale enough better than the weapon attacks of even the most weapon oriented cleric domains that no cleric should ever be resorting to a weapon attack past level 11 unless they're making it as an attack of opportunity. And War Caster is a good enough feat for clerics that honestly even then you shouldn't be.

Hexbladelocks can get cha based melee attacks, and extra attack, and a free magic weapon, and an extra +cha to melee weapon damage, and that is enough to make attacking with a weapon a decent option for them... but that again supports my argument because they are getting /so much/ from subclass features that a whole bunch of posters make a whole bunch of separate threads complaining about how hexblades are getting too much. And even with hexbladelocks getting too much for a lot of people, they still only barely keep even with warlocks who just spam agonizing eldritch blasts all day - and blaster locks can do so from the comfort and safety of long range, and only need a two level investment in warlock to do it, the rest of their levels can be in sorcerer or bard or commoner for all it matters. If they stick with warlock, then they get damage on par with the hexbladelock but with fewer invocation taxes - so they can have more varried and useful invocations - and without burning their boon on pact blade, meaning they either get a bunch of useful cantrips and ritual spells from tome or they get an exceedingly useful imp or quasit familiar from chain.

And almost nobody complains about them. They're better than actual melee hexblades in almost every way AND more versatile AND require less investment, yet the thing people complain about most is "cha SADness", something blasting locks get for free by default without ever worrying about weapon attack stats.


As a swords/valor bard 10 you get secrets, which is haste or holy weapon or swift quiver. You can be a pretty good combatant with those.

You can be an even better combatant casting haste on the fighter or barbarian and using your actions to cast spells instead of waving a heavy metal stick at enemies like a muggle. :p Past the lowest levels, you can be casting actual leveled spells with most of your actions, which trump weapon attacks (at least, the fairly weak weapon attacks of a bard) and cantrips alike.

Admittedly, bard attack cantrips scale *especially* poorly, so if you do run out of spells entirely then breaking out the old shortbow or light crossbow might be a better use of your action than scaled 'vicious mockeries' or whatever - though if you're concentrating on an especially good spell then a plain old dodge is probably better yet. But even admitting that bard attack cantrips don't really scale, agonizing eldritch blasts are only ever a two-level dip away, so if you're worried about your at will damage output at all (remembering that you have enough daily spell slots that you honestly might not even care) there's very little stopping you from picking up the ability to do good damage at basically any point in your career, and you certainly have to hop through a lot less hoops and burn a lot fewer resources than if you were trying to make your weapon attacks worth using.

[Kane0]

Once you have the spell slots to be casting levelled spells with most of your actions, and to be concentrating on big, battle-changing spells in every fight


Are we still talking about the warlock?

[Sception]

Are we still talking about the warlock?

I'm making the case that the 'problems' with hexblade are an extension of the problems of gixh subclasses of full casters in general.

The subclass either gives you enough to make weapon attacks a viable contender for your actions in combat - which hexblade bladelock does - but then you're getting arguably too much for a subclass and people complain - as they have been about the hexblade in thread after redundant thread since Xanathars was released years ago.

Or else the subclass doesn't give you enough to make weapon attacks a viable contender for your actions in combat - which is most often the case, as you would expect. It takes the bulk of the fighter's *parent class* features to make swinging a sword a even vaguely equivalent ability to a full caster's spell casting ability. Of course people are going to look askance when you squeeze equivalent features to an entire base class into the limited features of a subclass. And if you don't do that, then the 'gish' subclass fails to realize its narrative concepts mechanically and ends up better off ignoring its weapon options and just act like a full caster - albeit one with usually better base AC, which generally only serves to convert defensive spell slots into offensive spell slots, not to convert a back line caster into a front line warrior.

This is the case with war clerics (though I don't think it's as much of a problem with clerics since we want the class to have better AC so they can spend spells on party healing instead of personal defense), blade singers, valor bards, etc. Those are the classes that eventually can be bringing enough strong concentration spells per day that 'dodge' becomes arguably more attractive than both cantrips and weapon attacks if you don't want to spend spell slots. Admittedly that's never the case for warlocks.

Ironically, though, the improved weapon abilities not being enough to be better than just casting, however, is still the case for hexblades regardless, because even though people complain the most about the 'cha SADness' of their weapon attacks, and they *do* get enough to make weapon attacks viable, they're *still* honestly better off just spamming agonizing eldritch blasts, which gets them pretty much the same damage output but with better range, better boons, and more invocations.


So IMO the deep down fundamental fix for hexblade is the same as the fix for bladesinger, valor bard, etc etc. And that's to abandon the notion of gish subclasses of full caster classes, and just make more half caster base classes instead. Hexblade / bladelock in particular should have been a separate class from warlock from the start. Then warlock could have given up its bladey pretensions and been redesigned as a more focused caster. Make eldritch blast a class feature instead of a cantrip, remove light armor proficiency, lower hit die, but add some additional lower level daily slots to let them keep using their utility spells after the pact slots outgrow them. Maybe a 1/3 caster slot progression on top of their existing pact slots and mystic arcanum.

Then make hexblade a half-pact caster with no daily slots and no arcanum but with appropriate hp, proficiencies, and class features for a melee character, ending up as something vaguely similar to the pact magic subclass of the blood hunter.


Again though, those are hard fixes that involve rewriting classes entirely. "Move Hex Warrior out of hexblade, put it into blade boon" is fast, easy, and sufficiently addresses most people's biggest complaints about hexblade, while still leaving the hexblade itself intact for those who really do like its flavor, however thin the published fluff may be.

[Tanarii]

If you want a *real* fix, a deep down fix, that comes from acknowledging that *gish* doesn't work as a subclass of full caster and that hexblade/bladelock should be re-written as an entire stand alone class. Same for bladesinger - ditch it and bring back 4e's swordmage.Generally speaking I agree.

However like I said I made a passable 4e melee GISH warlock who used magic and class features to generate THP, and a at-will magic melee attack spell to attack with his longsword using Int. When his 1/encounter magic spell failed to generate THP, he had a 1/day daily as backup (Armor of Agathys I think). If he couldn't generate THP ... he stayed the heck out of melee combat.

5e warlocks can replicate most of this kind of GISH before Hexblade: Archfiend Warlocks with Pact of the Blade Boon, the invocation to cast False Life at-will, and Armor of Agathys spell.

All that's really missing is a spell to attach with your primary caster attribute. IMO shilleagh doesn't make the cut, mostly because it's for club/qstaff use. It's also a bonus action (conflicts with Hex). And feels-wise, it's a single cast, not a round by round cast, which feels wrong to me.

Edit: In short, IMO warlocks are fine as a somewhat glass cannon attacker that relies on magic to do their effective melee damage and defenses. But the magic attacks and defenses need to be up to snuff. They're pretty much there if you're willing to go Dex/Cha in equal amounts.

[Sorinth]

I'm making the case that the 'problems' with hexblade are an extension of the problems of gixh subclasses of full casters in general.

The subclass either gives you enough to make weapon attacks a viable contender for your actions in combat - which hexblade bladelock does - but then you're getting arguably too much for a subclass and people complain - as they have been about the hexblade in thread after redundant thread since Xanathars was released years ago.

Or else the subclass doesn't give you enough to make weapon attacks a viable contender for your actions in combat - which is most often the case, as you would expect. It takes the bulk of the fighter's *parent class* features to make swinging a sword a even vaguely equivalent ability to a full caster's spell casting ability. Of course people are going to look askance when you squeeze equivalent features to an entire base class into the limited features of a subclass. And if you don't do that, then the 'gish' subclass fails to realize its narrative concepts mechanically and ends up better off ignoring its weapon options and just act like a full caster - albeit one with usually better base AC, which generally only serves to convert defensive spell slots into offensive spell slots, not to convert a back line caster into a front line warrior.

This is the case with war clerics (though I don't think it's as much of a problem with clerics since we want the class to have better AC so they can spend spells on party healing instead of personal defense), blade singers, valor bards, etc. Those are the classes that eventually can be bringing enough strong concentration spells per day that 'dodge' becomes arguably more attractive than both cantrips and weapon attacks if you don't want to spend spell slots. Admittedly that's never the case for warlocks.

Ironically, it's *also* the case for hexblades, because even though people complain the most about the 'cha SADness' of their weapon attacks, and they *do* get enough to make weapon attacks viable, they're *still* honestly better off just spamming eldritch blasts, which gets them pretty much the same damage output but with better range, better boons, and more invocations.


So IMO the deep down fundamental fix for hexblade is the same as the fix for bladesinger, valor bard, etc etc. And that's to abandon the notion of gish subclasses of full caster classes, and just make more half caster base classes instead. Hexblade / bladelock in particular should have been a separate class from warlock from the start. Then warlock could have given up its bladey pretensions and been redesigned as a more focused caster. Make eldritch blast a class feature instead of a cantrip, remove light armor proficiency, lower hit die, but add some additional lower level daily slots to let them keep using their utility spells after the pact slots outgrow them. Maybe a 1/3 caster slot progression on top of their existing pact slots and mystic arcanum.

Then make hexblade a half-pact caster with no daily slots and no arcanum but with appropriate hp, proficiencies, and class features for a melee character, ending up as something vaguely similar to the pact magic subclass of the blood hunter.


Again though, those are hard fixes that involve rewriting classes entirely. "Move Hex Warrior out of hexblade, put it into blade boon" is fast, easy, and sufficiently addresses most people's biggest complaints about hexblade, while still leaving the hexblade itself intact for those who really do like its flavor, however thin the published fluff may be.

You make some valid points, but it's worth noting that for most of the Warlocks career they play very much like a half caster should. The lack of spell slots means most of the time they are using EB which is simply the magic equivalent of martials making attacks. They will throw out a key spell every once in a while, but otherwise have some buffs. That's pretty much what most people want from a Gish, attacking most of the times while having some utility/buff spells and the occasional big spell for key moments. At higher levels once they start getting more slots this is no longer the case and they become similar to other full casters. But I feel like they actually got the Gish mostly right with the Hexblade.

Compared to the half/third caster progression (Including previous editions) where your magic always feels weak because it's keying off a secondary stat and the spells just aren't at a power level where they can make a difference. So you are you stick with some utility/buff spells and otherwise are the standard base class. At least with the Paladin/Ranger they had their own spell list so the power level of the spells don't have to follow the same full caster curve but even so they didn't manage to make them comparatively strong which is why the Paladin smites most of the time and everybody feels Ranger is weak.

So when people talk about fixing Hexblade, what they really should be talking about is fixing the other Gish classes. I get why people dislike the Hexblade dip, but the solution isn't to make hexblade worse (Even though it's the easiest way) it's to make the other Gish classes be proper Gishes so that they don't feel they need to dip in the first place.

[Segev]

Earlier in this thread, I was discussing with Tanarii the possibility of either invocations that let you add eldritch blast to melee attacks or a cantrip that is essentially eldritch blast attatched to a melee attack. I think that nicely translates to gishing by pushing you into melee and making it viable, but it has the drawback of making you ask why you'd take those risks when you can do it from range. To answer that, it must do more damage or otherwise be more advantageous.

[Hael]

I fundamentally think this is a solvable problem, but only when we agree on what the problem is.

I agree with this, but I think people are fundamentally missing the problem with Hexblade. And that's self advantage. It changes the entire dynamic of DPR calculations. A PAM/GWM Hexbladelock with permanent self advantage (a 9th lvl spell ability mind you that they have access to in tier1 ) easily outdpr's a warrior and a barbarian in the early levels, as well as a straight blastlock. It's only around lvl 11 where the blastlock catches up (and eventually surpasses), and its only in tier 4 where the warrior and barbarian catch up (by which point the Hexblade has access to true polymorph and turns into a pitfiend). This scenario assumes some resource usage in a bossfight scenario (against lower acs, melee tends to do better than blasters, whereas at higher acs its the reverse) eg action surge, rage and curse.

observation 1) You can't give more dpr to hexbladelocks (or hexxbowlocks) in the early levels without further breaking the game. Alternatively you need to remove selfadvantage from the entire class (which would put its dpr on par with other martial classes), but this seems to be a design intention by WOTC. It would be nice to add dpr to blade/xbow locks at the higher lvls to make them better than blastlocks, but afaics you can't do that without addressing the previous 600 lb gorilla.

Observation 2) SAD is the primary reason Hexblade MC's break the game, so my conclusion is that it would be simpler for everyone if you just kept them MAD (needing eg str or dex for attack and damage rolls). It's easier to compensate them with new melee damage invocations in pact of the blade rather than taking away something.

observation 3) if Hexblade is mad, then they definitely need to keep armor at lvl 1. I don't like putting armor in pact of the blade b/c I think it overpowers it relative to the other options.

observation 4) You could create a melee invocation the specifically excludes the use of eldritch blast (you can have either one or the other). That partially solves the versatility issue relative to other classes/martials.

[Sorinth]

I agree with this, but I think people are fundamentally missing the problem with Hexblade. And that's self advantage. It changes the entire dynamic of DPR calculations. A PAM/GWM Hexbladelock with permanent self advantage (a 9th lvl spell ability mind you that they have access to in tier1 ) easily outdpr's a warrior and a barbarian in the early levels, as well as a straight blastlock. It's only around lvl 11 where the blastlock catches up (and eventually surpasses), and its only in tier 4 where the warrior and barbarian catch up (by which point the Hexblade has access to true polymorph and turns into a pitfiend). This scenario assumes some resource usage in a bossfight scenario (against lower acs, melee tends to do better than blasters, whereas at higher acs its the reverse) eg action surge, rage and curse.

observation 1) You can't give more dpr to hexbladelocks (or hexxbowlocks) in the early levels without further breaking the game. Alternatively you need to remove selfadvantage from the entire class (which would put its dpr on par with other martial classes), but this seems to be a design intention by WOTC. It would be nice to add dpr to blade/xbow locks at the higher lvls to make them better than blastlocks, but afaics you can't do that without addressing the previous 600 lb gorilla.

Observation 2) SAD is the primary reason Hexblade MC's break the game, so my conclusion is that it would be simpler for everyone if you just kept them MAD (needing eg str or dex for attack and damage rolls). It's easier to compensate them with new melee damage invocations in pact of the blade rather than taking away something.

observation 3) if Hexblade is mad, then they definitely need to keep armor at lvl 1. I don't like putting armor in pact of the blade b/c I think it overpowers it relative to the other options.

observation 4) You could create a melee invocation the specifically excludes the use of eldritch blast (you can have either one or the other). That partially solves the versatility issue relative to other classes/martials.

Why does self advantage matter? There are plenty of ways to gain advantage why does it matter whether your PC is the one doing it or a different one? Also Barbarian has self-advantage starting at level 2, so I'm not sure I understand how self-advantage is actually an issue.

The Hexblade is still going to want/need to start with a 14 Dex and a 15 Con (Even it out with Resilience) if going point buy. So they are just as MAD as most other classes, and certainly during Tier 1 & 2 their low number of spell slots and dependence on concentration spells make Con a bigger factor then it is for other classes. They aren't as SAD as people like to pretend.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why does self advantage matter? There are plenty of ways to gain advantage why does it matter whether your PC is the one doing it or a different one? Also Barbarian has self-advantage starting at level 2, so I'm not sure I understand how self-advantage is actually an issue.

The Hexblade is still going to want/need to start with a 14 Dex and a 15 Con (Even it out with Resilience) if going point buy. So they are just as MAD as most other classes, and certainly during Tier 1 & 2 their low number of spell slots and dependence on concentration spells make Con a bigger factor then it is for other classes. They aren't as SAD as people like to pretend.

The thing about calling them SAD is that they're given every possible tool to mitigate any potential for needing more than a bare minimum in their secondary or tertiary ability scores. Monks and Barbarians, which I believe are the most looked at for examples of MADness, are incentived to have the highest or at the very least above average ability score for their primary, secondary and tertiary scores.

Monk's have it the worse, needing a high Dexterity and Wisdom for their AC and damage calculations, as well as their DC's, and an above average con score to offset that they are a martial character with a 1d8 hit die.

Hexblades on the other hand are afforded a very decent armor class, given that they can use shields, and have their attack bonus and spell DC scale off the same statistic. They can afford instead to take average in both Dex and Con and prioritize maxing their Cha. Charisma is overall a very useful stat for increasing survivability as well, thanks to the feat Inspiring Leader. You can max your Cha and then start exclusively taking feats that shore up your weaknesses.

It's also better to think about what you no longer have to give up when you can use Charisma as your primary attack stat. A Paladin who wanted to have their powerful class features maximized would be giving up a maxed Dex or Str score, now they don't have to. You can increase that concentration check through your aura instead, any bonus to charisma now doubles as a +1 modifier for that saving throw. Your heavy armor dex dump Hexadin will still have a good dex saving throw.

Hexblade seems like a lot less of a problem in games that don't allow multiclassing, since the perceived problem is the dip-ability of it I feel that needs to always be kept in mind. It's easy to multiclass into/out of Hexblade, it's not that easy for other classes and you're not usually afforded the same benefits all for one level.

[Segev]

I know we're discussing it, but I'd like to outright ask the question: Is the Warlock able to be a solid gish if he does not get to use Charisma for his melee attack and damage? Would removing the Cha-instead-of-Str-for-melee mechanics Hexblade introduces make the Warlock Gish nonviable or overly weak?

For sake of argument, let's assume everything else about the Hexblade Patron stayed the same, but the Cha-for-melee was gone.

[Zalabim]

Any gish's weapon attacks only really have to compare favorably against that class's cantrips. It's just that warlock has the strongest options for its cantrips. It's hard to justify Blade's weapon attacks after level 17 because if a paladin had agonizing blast, they'd prefer Eldritch Blast then too. EB is a very high bar to pass, and it only needs one hand.

So as a crazy idea, what if Thirsting Blade allows the warlock to bonus action attack after casting a spell (yes, like an Eldritch knight.) What is the worst thing they can do? Greenflame blade with a +1 greatsword, +12 to hit, (31.5/49.5) 2d6+3d8+11/2d6+11 and (18.5) 3d8+5 secondary damage [50/68]. Eldritch blast then +1 heavy crossbow, +11 to hit, (42/58.5) 4*(1d10+5)/+12 to hit 1d10+11.

I also know I've been thinking "Eldritch Blast can't be used in melee, unless you have crossbow expert," but it actually can if your enemy can't see you. Sight shenanigans that give warlocks advantage also let them use EB right from melee range. So the absolute worst, most bonkers thing is EB (42) followed by greatsword (18), for 60 damage to the primary target, and it has the warlock still using EB. So, no, that addition to Thirsting Blade doesn't feel good to me.

So, round two. How's this: Thirsting Blade changed to "When you cast eldritch blast, you may use your pact weapon instead of creating beams. Make one weapon attack for each beam replaced. Choose before making the first attack." Requires EB and PotB. These are not attacks with eldritch blast. Lifedrinker changes so instead of dealing extra damage, you gain life. Now Thirsting Blade starts at two attacks at level 5 and scales to always keep up with eldritch blast. Downsides of requiring eldritch blast, and being really bland, and four attacks at level 17 even though that's not really new.

[Sorinth]

The thing about calling them SAD is that they're given every possible tool to mitigate any potential for needing more than a bare minimum in their secondary or tertiary ability scores. Monks and Barbarians, which I believe are the most looked at for examples of MADness, are incentived to have the highest or at the very least above average ability score for their primary, secondary and tertiary scores.

Monk's have it the worse, needing a high Dexterity and Wisdom for their AC and damage calculations, as well as their DC's, and an above average con score to offset that they are a martial character with a 1d8 hit die.

Hexblades on the other hand are afforded a very decent armor class, given that they can use shields, and have their attack bonus and spell DC scale off the same statistic. They can afford instead to take average in both Dex and Con and prioritize maxing their Cha. Charisma is overall a very useful stat for increasing survivability as well, thanks to the feat Inspiring Leader. You can max your Cha and then start exclusively taking feats that shore up your weaknesses.


Sorry but melee based hexblades can't afford to be average in Dex and Con. They need those stats to be 14+ which is not at all average. With a standard point buy they are taking either 15/15/14 or 15/14/14, that's not SAD. They aren't as MAD as some other classes, but they aren't as SAD as most others either.

I would also point out they can't really prioritize pumping Cha since they'll need Warcaster and/or Resilence(Con) ASAP. Not too mention quite a lot of Hexblade builds are going to go PAM/GWM, so there's really no room for things like Inspiring Leader.



It's also better to think about what you no longer have to give up when you can use Charisma as your primary attack stat. A Paladin who wanted to have their powerful class features maximized would be giving up a maxed Dex or Str score, now they don't have to. You can increase that concentration check through your aura instead, any bonus to charisma now doubles as a +1 modifier for that saving throw. Your heavy armor dex dump Hexadin will still have a good dex saving throw.

Hexblade seems like a lot less of a problem in games that don't allow multiclassing, since the perceived problem is the dip-ability of it I feel that needs to always be kept in mind. It's easy to multiclass into/out of Hexblade, it's not that easy for other classes and you're not usually afforded the same benefits all for one level.

You need to also compare Hexblade to non-MAD classes, because in those comparisons using Cha for attack/damage isn't actually overpowered.

If you want to stop Paladins dipping Hexblade rather then "fixing" Hexblade you could just as easily change up the Paladin so that he doesn't suffer from being MAD in the first place. Because frankly having the aura which is the iconic powerful feature key off a secondary stat is the real problem. What if you made the Paladin Aura use Proficiency bonus instead of Charisma. Now the incentive to dip Hexblade is much less since the benefits you get from maxing Charisma over Strength aren't nearly as important.

Also it's worth noting that multi-classing is an optional rule to begin with and for a warlock this is doubly so because of the Patron. If someone wants to make a Pact with some cosmic entity they are going to have to actually seek out said entity and negotiate a pact. What is the Patron getting out of this pact?

[Sorinth]

I know we're discussing it, but I'd like to outright ask the question: Is the Warlock able to be a solid gish if he does not get to use Charisma for his melee attack and damage? Would removing the Cha-instead-of-Str-for-melee mechanics Hexblade introduces make the Warlock Gish nonviable or overly weak?

For sake of argument, let's assume everything else about the Hexblade Patron stayed the same, but the Cha-for-melee was gone.

Pre-Hexblade, many felt Warlock wasn't a good Gish (Assuming straight Warlock and no multi-classing).

I didn't think he was that bad, but I also didn't think any of the arcane gish options were good. And having seen many of these threads very few complain about straight Hexblade, it's almost always the multiclassing aspect that rubs people the wrong way.

[ProsecutorGodot]

SNIP

Also it's worth noting that multi-classing is an optional rule to begin with and for a warlock this is doubly so because of the Patron. If someone wants to make a Pact with some cosmic entity they are going to have to actually seek out said entity and negotiate a pact. What is the Patron getting out of this pact?

Touching on a few points of the "snipped" post for length:
-Touching on point buy, it's not the standard. Rolling for stats is the standard, which having only one major stat to prioritize as a melee spellcaster is a big boon for rolled stats. You can become pretty powerful from the start a lot easier as a Hexblade. I won't deny that 14 isn't exactly average, but it's also not very difficult to meet.

Even if we use point buy, Half Elven Warlocks can start with an array of 10/14/14/10/12/17. Vhuman's can start 10/14/14/10/12/16 with Res(Con). These are outstanding stats for a Gish and you've sacrificed nothing for them. That's not even touching on Changeling who can start with an 18 Charisma, not losing very much in the lack of additional ability score increases.
-Your feat mentions conflict with eachother. Resilient Con and War Caster aren't strictly necessary, although they are helpful, and the ones who take PAM/GWM don't need War Caster to maintain casting as their weapon doesn't take both hands to wield when not attacking. The ones who need War Caster are the ones not taking PAM/GWM because they use a Shield. There isn't as much of a feat tax as you make it appear.
-Comparing it to those classes is exactly what I'm doing when I bring Paladin up, a Paladin who wants to not suffer any trade offs needs to invest a lot more than a Hexblade does, this carries over to all of the classes who can't use their primary stat for both their spellcasting and martial ability. The fact that you need those extra ability scores is not exclusive to a Hexblade, Hexblade just doesn't require you to give up anything, you will reach peak offensive power without having to sacrifice much or any survivability.

For the remaining part of the post, that's an entirely separate discussion that's been done to death, but summarized as "Hexblade have the worst patron, not just because it's ambiguous but because there's really no bar for entry. It needs a full rewrite."

[Sorinth]

Touching on a few points of the "snipped" post for length:
-Touching on point buy, it's not the standard. Rolling for stats is the standard, which having only one major stat to prioritize as a melee spellcaster is a big boon for rolled stats. You can become pretty powerful from the start a lot easier as a Hexblade. I won't deny that 14 isn't exactly average, but it's also not very difficult to meet.

Even if we use point buy, Half Elven Warlocks can start with an array of 10/14/14/10/12/17. Vhuman's can start 10/14/14/10/12/16 with Res(Con). These are outstanding stats for a Gish and you've sacrificed nothing for them. That's not even touching on Changeling who can start with an 18 Charisma, not losing very much in the lack of additional ability score increases.
-Your feat mentions conflict with eachother. Resilient Con and War Caster aren't strictly necessary, although they are helpful, and the ones who take PAM/GWM don't need War Caster to maintain casting as their weapon doesn't take both hands to wield when not attacking. The ones who need War Caster are the ones not taking PAM/GWM because they use a Shield. There isn't as much of a feat tax as you make it appear.
-Comparing it to those classes is exactly what I'm doing when I bring Paladin up, a Paladin who wants to not suffer any trade offs needs to invest a lot more than a Hexblade does, this carries over to all of the classes who can't use their primary stat for both their spellcasting and martial ability. The fact that you need those extra ability scores is not exclusive to a Hexblade, Hexblade just doesn't require you to give up anything, you will reach peak offensive power without having to sacrifice much or any survivability.

For the remaining part of the post, that's an entirely separate discussion that's been done to death, but summarized as "Hexblade have the worst patron, not just because it's ambiguous but because there's really no bar for entry. It needs a full rewrite."

I feel you are underestimating the need to up you con, yeah you don't need both Warcaster and Resilience but having at least one is more then just a nice to have. A melee warlock is going to take damage and they don't have the spell slots to simply recast their concentration spells. Maybe if you mostly stick to short adventuring days then it isn't as important. But regardless why is it that the Warlock should have to choose between regular attacks and spell DC? Does wizard have to choose between upping his DPR and his spell DC? Cleric is just going to hit things with Spiritual Weapon and cast a spell that's better then making a melee attack anyways, no need to pump a secondary stat. Druid can already do exactly what the Hexblade does and melee attack with their spell casting stat. Having to pump more then 1 stat to use you main class abilities is not the norm, it's basically Paladin and Monk.

And for the record dipping Hexblade isn't "free", it has it's own tradeoffs, you are pushing back higher spell slots, Extra Attack, Aura, Improved Divine Smite. Like I said the fix for Hexblade dipping should be done by fixing the Paladin's MADness.

And how exactly is there no bar for entry for Hexblade? You still need to make a Pact with something. If anything it's probably harder to make a Hexblade pact then it is Fiend/Celestial/Fey simply because the later are easier to locate and communicate with then whatever is behind Hexblade or GOO.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But regardless why is it that the Warlock should have to choose between regular attacks and spell DC? Does wizard have to choose between upping his DPR and his spell DC? Cleric is just going to hit things with Spiritual Weapon and cast a spell that's better then making a melee attack anyways, no need to pump a secondary stat. Druid can already do exactly what the Hexblade does and melee attack with their spell casting stat.

Don't compare Hexblade being able to melee and have a good spell DC to spellcasters, compare it to the other Gish types. War Clerics aren't very likely to be keeping up in damage, Nature Clerics make better Gish than they do off Shillelagh, EK aren't really forced to prioritize Int because of their limited spell pool but imagine that someone did want to use some spells that rely on DC, they're going to have to give up some Str or Con to up their Int and that hurts them disproportionately more than the Warlock. You don't see people touting Bladesinger as a fantastic Gish either, because they sacrifice a lot on top of still being on one of the most fragile classes.

Hexblades get to do both melee and magic, suffering very little if any penalties for being a top performer in both. I'm struggling to find a better way to phrase this. An Evoker Wizard will be a great blaster, but bad in melee, a Hexblade will be great in both.


And for the record dipping Hexblade isn't "free", it has it's own tradeoffs, you are pushing back higher spell slots, Extra Attack, Aura, Improved Divine Smite. Like I said the fix for Hexblade dipping should be done by fixing the Paladin's MADness.
You generally gain more than you lose, and since it's a one level dip the only thing you really "lose" is your capstone. The conquest paladin guide "The Wall of Fear (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?543427-The-Wall-of-Fear-A-Complete-Guide-to-the-Oath-of-Conquest)" has a pretty good summary of the interaction written up, I'd recommend reading through it.

For the record, I never intended to claim that the Paladin is MAD (certain subclasses are, Conquest and Redemption come to mind as more Charisma focused). I think it's fine that a non multiclassed Paladin will have to make tradeoffs, because unlike Monk they're not necessarily suffering for making those tradeoffs, they're just specializing in a different aspect of the class.

[Hael]

Why does self advantage matter? There are plenty of ways to gain advantage why does it matter whether your PC is the one doing it or a different one? Also Barbarian has self-advantage starting at level 2, so I'm not sure I understand how self-advantage is actually an issue.

Self-advantage is a pretty huge deal for DPR (and it's related cousin, never hitting at disadvantage), and it scales with the various feats (EA,SS,GWM etc) deep into endgame. Other classes might get an advantage roll every three or four turns, but a Warlock has it almost permanently (well for 10 minutes two times per short rest early on). Obviously the frequency of advantage depends on party comp somewhat, but my experience is that I rarely have advantage when I desperately want it, unless i'm a class that can produce it at will (eg vengeance paladins, Barbarians, warlocks) so its a pretty big deal. As for the dpr of Barbarians, they have excellent DPR with reckless (significantly more than a fighter until the fighter gets a second feat), and are doing almost as much as a Hexblade (the extra crit range, +1-2 accuracy from pact weapon and extra flat damage modifiers puts it slightly ahead). Consider that an optimized fighter in the early levels is doing maybe 50% less dpr than both of those classes without advantage... It's so crazy.

As for MAD vs SAD. The big practical difference with making Hexblade MAD would be that their spellcasting would be significantly nerfed, as most would drop cha down to pump strength up. This would hit their EB damage, but more importantly it would hit their spell dc and attack modifiers.. Like on the order of +3 or +4 depending on build. That significantly nerfs the occasional party saving synaptic static that a lot of Hexblades use on occasion. I personally think that's fine for what is essentially supposed to be a melee character who largely uses their slots for selfbuffs.

Anyway, as far as con, normally people prioritize double ASIs for Cha/PAM/GWM or the sharpshooter feats first until late tier 3. Yea its not ideal, but again you have darkness, giving you what is essentially +4-5 AC and the untargetable to spells status. That's still strong pretty strong defensively, especially when you have extra hps/temp hps coming from various invocations/aoa and selfhealing etc

[Tanarii]

Hexblades on the other hand are afforded a very decent armor class, given that they can use shields, and have their attack bonus and spell DC scale off the same statistic. They can afford instead to take average in both Dex and Con and prioritize maxing their Cha. Charisma is overall a very useful stat for increasing survivability as well, thanks to the feat Inspiring Leader. You can max your Cha and then start exclusively taking feats that shore up your weaknesses.
Dex 14 and Con 15 isn't really average stats. Unless you're a Dex or Con race.

I can't see anyone going "at least 15 Con" though. Exactly because of that. The question is more usually can I out a 14 in Con do I drop it to 12?

And if Str is required for attacking, the answer is probably 12. With 10 and 8 in Wis and Int. (Or 8 and 8 using point buy.)

Of course, Dex Blade locks are actually a fine GISH without Hexblade. You just aren't going to be rocking Con, but you've got invocation, spell, and even Pact to get THP. It's strength lock GISH that are lacking. So yeah, all in all I don't really think SAD is necessary. But it's real nice for locks that want to wield 2H weapons. (What bothers me more is probably elven Gish having trouble using long swords it alotof folks just fix that y making them finesse.)

But the real problem is giving armor. You can't do that without it quickly becoming a problem, all the ore so if it's usable by blaster locks.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Dex 14 and Con 15 isn't really average stats. Unless you're a Dex or Con race.

I can't see anyone going "at least 15 Con" though. Exactly because of that. The question is more usually can I out a 14 in Conor do I drop it to 12?

And if Str is required for attacking, the answer is probably 12. With 10 and 8 in Wis and Int. (Or 8 and 8 using point buy.)

I've never heard of someone pushing desperately for 15 con in a point buy build (except probably on Barbarian), my using the term "average" should probably have been "minimal" since that's the bare minimum (14/14 is what I would suggest, not 14/15) you need to maximize medium armor for Dex and seems to be the Con score many push as "safe" for a class to meet.

I agree that it's not average, but are you trying to say it's above or below average? I said that I think that a point buy VHuman with Res(Con) having 10/14/14/10/12/16 to start is outstanding for a gish who can use medium armor. I'm not sure that I personally would even chose to start with Res(Con), I might prefer Inspiring Leader to start and taking a penalty to Str or Int to keep the 14 in Con.


Of course, Dex Blade locks are actually a fine GISH without Hexblade. You just aren't going to be rocking Con, but you've got invocation, spell, and even Pact to get THP. It's strength lock GISH that are lacking. So yeah, all in all I don't really think SAD is necessary. But it's real nice for locks that want to wield 2H weapons. (What bothers me more is probably elven Gish having trouble using long swords it alotof folks just fix that y making them finesse.)

But the real problem is giving armor. You can't do that without it quickly becoming a problem, all the ore so if it's usable by blaster locks.
The scrawny man with a massive weapon seems to be a popular trope that Hexblade enables. On the Dex Blade Lock, yes I agree that they can also be fine, but they're likely worse than the Hexblade in at least 2 of the 3 ability scores (Dex/Con/Cha). I'll fully admit to not having personal experience playing a Dex Warlock to know if that's as much of a big deal as I assume it is, I feel like it would start to show most if they ever wanted to branch out into spells that involved saves rather than simply casting Hex and Eldritch Blast.

Agreed on the armor, medium armor and shields makes it very easy to be a durable caster.

[Kane0]

I do enjoy a good 'brewing exercise.

I subscribe to the belief that the Hexblade was created purely to correct the laclustre nature of the PHB blade boon, and was an overcorrection performed at the subclass level rather than tacking the problem directly. As such the thematics played secodn fiddle to the mechanics which made the entire thing suffer more.

Breaking down all the aspects of the Blade pact, associated invocations and Hexblade benefits:
1: Weapon summoning
2: Weapon counting as magic
3: Weapon becoming +1
4: Cha to damage with weapon attacks
5: Extra Attack
6: Smites
7: Curse/extra Hex
8: Weapon/Armor/Shield profs
9: Cha as attack stat
10: Reanimating your victims
11: Miss chance from cursed targets
12: Moving Curse

That's quite a bit! We won't need to add anything new, just rearrange these pieces. Good thing we have invocations as a bit of a 'pressure release valve'.

So one important thing to keep in mind is we want Blade Pact to be a valid choice for all gishlocks, not just one subclass. Otherwise, why have it as one of the three pact boon options? To whit, we cannot lock core gish functionality behind
The other thing to keep in mind is when these things come online. Level 1 is Patron feature, level 2 is Invocations and level 3 boon, followed by another invocation at 5 and patron feature at 6. We want minimum viable product at level 2-3 and full base functionality by level 5-6.

So lets sort through what we want where:
Blade Pact: 1, 9
Subclass: 7, 6, 11, 12
Invocations (Blade pact): 2/3, 8
Invocations (blade pact + level 5): 5
Invocations (blade pact + level 9): 4
10 is pretty left-field, lets just leave that as an invocation not connected to Blade pact.

Now some might potentially have a problem with changing their primary attack stat at level 3 but I don't think it's that big a deal, after all other gishes have to wait a little longer for some features like and your average warlock will want some decent Str and/or dex anyways, so you'll only be one or two points behind for those levels. Plus you still have cantrips (including melee cantrips!) from level 1 if you aren't comfortable using a secondary stat for your attacks.

Then from there it's just a case of tweaking those features to better fit and adjusting the flavor to better hold it all together.

Warlock Pact of the Blade: As is except (a) it doesn't count as magical, (b) you can choose a ranged weapon (c) you can use Cha as your attack stat using your pact weapon

Hexblade 1: Hexblade's Curse as is, except bonus damage is half 'lock level once per turn and is specifically with *weapon* attacks. No hex warrior.
Hexblade 6: Eldritch Smite as per the Invocation
Hexblade 10: Armor of Hexes as is
Hexblade 14: Master of Hexes as is

Invocations:
Improved Pact Weapon: Counts as magical for the purposes of overcoming blah blah blah
Accursed Spectre: Warlock level 9 requirement, usable once per short or long rest.
Lifedrinker: as is
Thirsting Blade: as is, although i'm sorely tempted to turn this into a lite vampiric weapon mechanic

As for weapon/armor profs, its pretty much covered by Blade pact and Armor of Shadows plus whatever other means you have of getting them like by race, feat or MC. But if you're desperate I suggest the UA Eldritch Armor invocation tweaked to work with one suit of armor or a shield you touch.

[Tanarii]

Kane0 that makes me feel like my OP came this close to nailing it. :smallwink:

[Sception]

A reasonable set of changes, though I don't see why you wouldn't have their magically summoned pact blade count as magic, and I think you should still include that +1 to hit and damage with improved pact weapon, which is otherwise a bit underwhelming as an invocation. Not a big deal either way, since eventually actual magic weapons make both the magical nature of pact blade and the entire improved pact weapon invocation redundant either way, but still.

I do note that these changes mostly just amount to moving hex warrior into pact of the blade, and removing the armor proficiencies entirely, which, I mean, sure, that solves the problem of giving blaster locks better base AC than maybe they should have, but I don't see why it would be a problem to just package that into blade pact. Expecting multiclassing to make a class feature work is questionable design. armor of shadows doesn't really work here for multiple reasons - for one you're already expecting bladelocks to take more invocations than they'll even have access to for most of their career. With how many invocation taxes bladelocks already have to take, it isn't really much of a 'release valve'. For another, mage armor alone does not really make for viable melee combatant AC, so yeah, you're back to otherwise single classed bladelocks needing to dip fighter or paladin for the proficiencies they need to function, which was one of the problems with bladelock that the hexblade was intended to patch.


Swapping pact smite and the specter works fine enough, and I know some people complain about it not making sense, but it's there to establish the shadowfell/raven queen connection. We all understand that, right? Granted, those connections are nebulous and poorly defined, as all fluff for the shadowfell and the raven queen are in 5e, but they were an important part of the tone and flavor of the hexblade as published, and the specter is the main mechanical representation of that flavor. Moving the specter out of hexblade is fine mechanically, and makes the class's fluff cleaner, it's not homebrew change I object to, but there is something lost in the process.

[Tanarii]

It's a problem to package armor into pact of the blade boon because it makes it far more powerful than the other boons as a defensive option appealing to blaster locks.

If you want to package it in, I think the only reasonable way to do it is taking the boon removes Eldritch Blast. Or changes it into some kind of eldritch strike melee cantrip.

[Sception]

It's a problem to package armor into pact of the blade boon because it makes it far more powerful than the other boons as a defensive option appealing to blaster locks.

Given how versatile and useful chain's familiar and tomes cantrips are, and how literally none of the blade boon-specific invocations are for blaster locks while both the other boons have some useful invocations, I think taking blade boon is enough of a cost that if a regular caster warlock wants to take it for a defensive boost it's fine.

Compare to Valor Bard. As I've complained about earlier, it doesn't work as intended since it's better for regular casty bards and doesn't make melee weapon based bards viable. However, as a 'better armored caster' subclass I don't think it's overpowered. The other casty colleges, lore and glamour, offer a lot of useful benefits, forgoing those benefits for better base AC is a choice with benefits and trade offs that I don't think is unreasonable or unbalanced. A blast spamming, non-weapon-using warlock who takes blade boon for the AC is arguably giving up more than a casty bard would.

The problem with hexblade's armor proficiencies as published isn't that they give a caster character too good an AC at all, it's that they give that AC boost too soon and at no cost, since hexblade's other first level subclass features are at least on par with other patrons for blaster locks as written. Arguably better, if the blaster favors pure damage over the utility other patrons provide.

putting the proficiencies on blade boon would let the casters access it, yes, but blade boon does nothing else for them where tome or chain do quite a bit, so the tradeoff is, imo, fair, and keeping the proficiencies in class would allow bladelocks to work without a multiclass - albeit with some awkwardness at first and second level.

Again, if a player commits to playing a single classed melee bladelock from level one, perhaps not taking eldritch blast with one of their starting cantrips to demonstrate that commitment, I don't think there'd be any balance problem with giving them hex warrior as written right out of the gate. that's too clunky and haphazard a fix to work as any sort of actual errata, but if you're already in the realm of house rules I don't think consistency and clarity of presentation need to be priorities they way they do for published content.

[Segev]

Warlock Pact of the Blade: As is except (a) it doesn't count as magical, (b) you can choose a ranged weapon (c) you can use Cha as your attack stat using your pact weapon

Hexblade 1: Hexblade's Curse as is, except bonus damage is half 'lock level once per turn and is specifically with *weapon* attacks. No hex warrior.
Hexblade 6: Eldritch Smite as per the Invocation
Hexblade 10: Armor of Hexes as is
Hexblade 14: Master of Hexes as is

Invocations:
Improved Pact Weapon: Counts as magical for the purposes of overcoming blah blah blah
Accursed Spectre: Warlock level 9 requirement, usable once per short or long rest.
Lifedrinker: as is
Thirsting Blade: as is, although i'm sorely tempted to turn this into a lite vampiric weapon mechanic

As for weapon/armor profs, its pretty much covered by Blade pact and Armor of Shadows plus whatever other means you have of getting them like by race, feat or MC. But if you're desperate I suggest the UA Eldritch Armor invocation tweaked to work with one suit of armor or a shield you touch.
I agree more with your breakdown this post quoted than your solution to it. In particular, we have spells and invocations to work with; the Patron is entirely unnecessary. Which is why I recommend adding a new cantrip, moving mage armor to the warlock spell list, and filling in the rest with invocations. No need to directly address the place pact boon at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with your premise.
Me as well.
And what, I wonder, is fundamentally "not gish" about a College of Valor Bard or a College of Swords Bard.
Full Caster, solid melee/martial skills.
That they have to wait until level 3 to be that? Every martial class has that problem - not reall "my PC" Until selection at level 3. (Particularly Paladins and Rangers) - as I alluded to a page or so ago.

As for weapon/armor profs, its pretty much covered by Blade pact and Armor of Shadows plus whatever other means you have of getting them like by race, feat or MC. But if you're desperate I suggest the UA Eldritch Armor invocation tweaked to work with one suit of armor or a shield you touch. Nice overall post, but I'd like to address this part. IMO, the medium armor ought to be a standard part of Blade Pact Boon, but if you toss in that invocation, it does force a choice with a benefit. I'd still suggest armor only no shield, but I like your "armor or shield" idea as well.

[Tanarii]

Given how versatile and useful chain's familiar and tomes cantrips are, and how literally none of the blade boon-specific invocations are for blaster locks while both the other boons have some useful invocations, I think taking blade boon is enough of a cost that if a regular caster warlock wants to take it for a defensive boost it's fine.I disagree. Chain familiar and tome are pretty much right on par in terms of strength with the original blade boon. Adding SAD for offense and armor for defense is out of line. Not Hexblade level 1 feature out of line, but out of line.

[Sception]

Me as well.
And what, I wonder, is fundamentally "not gish" about a College of Valor Bard or a College of Swords Bard.
Full Caster, solid melee/martial skills.

The melee/martial skills aren't actually solid, resulting in valor bard not being a gishy blend of melee and magic but rather just an all magic all the time guy like any other 5e bard, just with better base AC. Fundamentally, full casting is too much casting to actually give a full caster subclass solid melee/martial skills without the total package being seen as "too much". Warlock barely qualifies as a full caster to begin with, and people have been complaining about hexblade doing too much since it's release largely because it does do enough to make weapon use a viable option without reducing the warlock's existing casting ability as a trade off.

[KorvinStarmast]

The melee/martial skills aren't actually solid, resulting in valor bard not being a gishy blend of melee and magic but rather just an all magic all the time guy like any other 5e bard, just with better base AC. Fundamentally, full casting is too much casting to actually give a full caster subclass solid melee/martial skills without the total package being seen as "too much". Warlock barely qualifies as a full caster to begin with, and people have been complaining about hexblade doing too much since it's release largely because it does do enough to make weapon use a viable option without reducing the warlock's existing casting ability as a trade off. Would making Cha the attack stat solve this, or are you looking for smite like things?

[Sception]

extra attack, additional damage scaling at level 11 (another extra attack, or extra damage on all attacks). Probably another damage boost apart from that (think battle master's superiority dice, barbarian's rage damage, etc), preferably one that comes at the direct cost of casting ability. Divine Smite really does do this perfectly. Eldritch Knights ability to make a weapon attack and a cantrip attack in the same turn comes close, but isn't quite there. Good potential, though, it's definitely a direction worth exploring further.

Keying both the weapon attacks and the spellcasting abilities off the same stat is also pretty much essential if you value the idea of the character freely switching between offensive spells and weapon attacks. Otherwise past the earliest levels you either get a weapon user who only really casts a few defense and utility spells like eldritch knight & arcane trickster or you get 'backline casters just with better AC', even if the class features support both.

To be clear, I don't think it's really possible for a subclass of a full caster to pull this off. It will always either be too much or not enough. fighters, barbarians, paladins, etc dedicate the bulk of their base class features to keeping weapon attacks meaningful at all levels. You can't fit equivalent features to an entire base class into a subclass, especially a full caster subclass. It kind of works for artificer if only because the artificer's feature weight is much more heavily skewed towards subclass than basically any other class in the game. It sort of works for warlock for the same reason, but even then not really, as thread after thread of hexblade complaints demonstrates.

Again, imo the deep down solution is do abandon gish subclasses of full casters as a concept and instead expand the range of available half caster classes. I think Paladins & Battle Master Artificers get the balance closest to correct. I think 'bladesinger' and 'hexblade/bladelock' would be better served by being reworked from the ground up in that image.

For the record, I don't hate the valor bard. I think it works pretty well as a tougher bard subclass - not too weak, not too strong, fun to play so long as you go in with the understanding that it is at the end of the day a dedicated full caster rather than a gishy spell sword. Given the relative weakness of bard cantrip scaling you even might make some weapon attacks when you're out of *real* spells, but real spells are still overwhelmingly the focus, imo. I just don't think it really works as the swashbuckling spell sword that I think it was probably intended to be.

[Tanarii]

Woah there, that's all far too much.

All you need to be a starting GISH is 2 attacks and martial weapons and arcane nuke type magic/defense. Magic can provide extra offense and defense. For example, you can even skip the 2 attacks if your campaign allows SCAG cantrips

Valor Bards don't feel right as GISH for a simple reason because they are like Clerics and Druids: buffers/healers. They're not Arcane Nukes. I mean, all three of those can be almost-tanky-gish right out of the box except Bards. The point of Valor Bard is to turn them into a into buff/heal kinda-GISH.

That's why a comparison to Valor Bards isn't really apt. Warlocks, at best, should be THP tanking. Far more likely they're going to be heavily offensive.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the record, I don't hate the valor bard. I think it works pretty well as a tougher bard subclass - not too weak, not too strong, fun to play so long as you go in with the understanding that it is at the end of the day a dedicated full caster rather than a gishy spell sword. Given the relative weakness of bard cantrip scaling you even might make some weapon attacks when you're out of *real* spells, but real spells are still overwhelmingly the focus, imo. I just don't think it really works as the swashbuckling spell sword that I think it was probably intended to be.
Here's an idea: Paladin is 5e's Gish, no matter the oath. But with your complete post in mind, I think I'll take another Look at Swords Bards and see if I can come up with something juicier.

[Segev]

The melee/martial skills aren't actually solid, resulting in valor bard not being a gishy blend of melee and magic but rather just an all magic all the time guy like any other 5e bard, just with better base AC. Fundamentally, full casting is too much casting to actually give a full caster subclass solid melee/martial skills without the total package being seen as "too much". Warlock barely qualifies as a full caster to begin with, and people have been complaining about hexblade doing too much since it's release largely because it does do enough to make weapon use a viable option without reducing the warlock's existing casting ability as a trade off.Except...that's not really what people are complaining about. They're complaining about one thing primarily, and then there's my complaint.

My complaint is primarily flavor. Or rather, lack thereof. Sure, they put some food coloring on the Hexblade Patron, but it's still a flavorless mass of conflicting ideas that doesn't match mechanically with its premise. Which is why my fix focused on eliminating the Patron (freeling the Warlock to have an actually cool, flavorful Patron) and putting the relevant powers into spells and invocations. My latest version (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?587734-Turning-the-Hexblade-quot-Patron-quot-into-modular-powers) has a unique Warlock-only cantrip that I chose to name "hexblade" to reflect what the change means (and because it fits what it does.

Hexblade
Transmutation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a melee weapon)
Duration: 1 minute
The weapon you are holding is imbued with your Patron's power. For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of attacks using that weapon. The weapon also becomes magical, if it isn’t already. The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon. If you have Pact of the Blade, you can cast this spell on your Pact Weapon as part of making an attack with it, and your Pact Weapon is a valid target for this spell no matter its form.

The primary thing isn't that it does too much, but that it does it too quickly (and thus makes it imminently dippable). Unfortunately, my hexblade cantrip takes the biggest thing that makes people want to dip Paladin into it and makes it accessible with a dip or one pick on Magic Initiate, so is probably still too good. I'm considering altering it to only work on simple weapons, to match Warlock base proficiency and limit its utility to non-Warlocks. Leaving the clause about it working with the Pact Weapon no matter its form would make the Pact Weapon gishlock able to use it with any weapon while limiting it to simple weapons for others.

My other design fear is that this is "too good." To the point that a Blade Pact Warlock has a cantrip tax. So... well, this is a better question for responding to Tanarii's post here:


I disagree. Chain familiar and tome are pretty much right on par in terms of strength with the original blade boon. Adding SAD for offense and armor for defense is out of line. Not Hexblade level 1 feature out of line, but out of line.

I think it might be worthwhile to examine for comparison what each Pact gives you when you buy no Invocations or other things to support them.

The Chain, I think, comes out the strongest, honestly. The boosted familiar options not only can attack (more a ribbon than anything else, given the power of their attacks, but situationally quite helpful), but often has other powers that are useful adjuncts to the Warlock's own. As a shapeshifting invisible spy, the Imp and Quasit almost can't be beat. Heck, they have hands; they could arguably wield weapons or magic items of their own. The pseudodragon has its telepathy, and the sprite is also an invisible flier who can bring a light version of the Paladin's evildar to the table. Even some of the non-upgrade familiars can do interesting things with an attack, like poison or flyby (though they tend to do so little damage that it's not worth it).

Tome Pact is +3 cantrips, and they can be from any list. If eldritch blast wasn't already the most coveted cantrip for those picking off-class cantrips, this would be far stronger, but it's still nice. Brings them up to match the early-level Sorcerer for number of cantrips known, and can facilitate some tricks that combining cantrips of various classes with non-class focus might require. I can't name any, but it's still potentially exploitable, and well within the Warlock's "cheating for power" theme.

Blade Pact is one of a few ways to guarantee having a magic weapon, though the fact that the Warlock has damaging cantrips makes that less valuable. Being proficient with any weapon you want is nice, though without any "help," the Pact Weapon isn't going to be using your primary stat. Or, if it is, you're focusing away from your casting. I'm not actually sure it DOES stack up in power compared to the other two. It's like some of the complaints about the monk - particularly four-element monk - having conflicting powers that work against each other and demand you spread your resources too thinly. Am I missing something? Well... let's see: you can't be permanently disarmed (but again, you're not a warrior and you have cantrips), and you can have the perfect weapon for a task (so tool-substitutions, maybe...a long polearm as a ten-foot pole you didn't have to carry in with you?).

One reason I rate Chain so highly in the "without help" category is because it's useful at pretty much full power even with no invocations or spells dedicated to it. The majority of Pact-exclusive Invocations are, to me, in fact, rather disappointing precisely because they're kind-of random in their restriction, and they don't really use nor support the Familiar. The couple that do (e.g. Voice of the Chain Master) are nice, but hardly necessary to really exploit the meat of the Pact.

Pact of the Tome is really a gateway for one specific Invocation. I find it hard to buy that anybody taking that Pact isn't going to be taking Book of Secrets. The omni-ritual-caster feat-in-an-invocation is the real power of it. The cantrips are nice, don't get me wrong, but being able to go faux wizard AND take on the rare rituals from non-wizard that you also want is the real prize, here. There aren't many other Invocations for this Pact at all, though the Moon one that lets you go without sleep is kinda cool. But Book of Secrets is, for all practical purposes, an Invocation tax on the Pact of the Tome, in my opinion.

Which brings us back to Pact of the Blade. Arguably, Thirsting Blade is not an Invocation Tax, if you can convincingly tell me with a straight face that Pact of the Blade is useful without going full gish. I may be missing something, but having a weapon you can't lose and that is magic, while nice, seems redundant with the other features a Warlock gets. Maybe if the Bladelock never took eldritch blast, but then he's got no ranged option.

I have seen some not-unconvincing arguments that eldritch blast should have been a Warlock class feature that scaled only with Warlock level. I believe it was INTENDED that eldritch blast be accessible via feat or - possibly - even Bardic shenanigans. (Can Magical Secrets pick up cantrips?) And that dipping be viable with it. I do wonder just how many Warlock builds would be changed by having Warlocks get eldritch blast as a freebie cantrip at level 1. Would that just be, effectively, "+1 cantrip known?" Or would it actually cause some Warlocks to have it when they otherwise wouldn't have?

Anyway, that's a digression. The point is, I'm not sure Pact of the Blade didn't already have the biggest set of Invocation taxes, between Thirsting Blade and the one that increases damage dealt, in order to make it useful as a choice over eldritch blast or other cantrip options.


In light of this, if "taxes" are a valid thing for Pacts to require before they're "good" or to let them be a worthy choice, if they are a lock into a build style as well as a play style, then hexblade being another such tax isn't nearly so big of a deal. But it would be nice if Pact of the Blade weren't in need of a tax, but also could feasibly be used on a more non-gishlock. As well as on a warlock who wants to be more physical (maybe running Strength, even).


Huh. Final thought: What if "Hexblade" were a Fighter subclass? The Warlock equivalent to Eldritch Knight? Gets Pact of the Blade at level 3, Pact Magic, and a small selection of Invocations?

[KorvinStarmast]

Hexblade
Transmutation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a melee weapon)
Duration: 1 minute
The weapon you are holding is imbued with your Patron's power. For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of attacks using that weapon. The weapon also becomes magical, if it isn’t already. The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon. If you have Pact of the Blade, you can cast this spell on your Pact Weapon as part of making an attack with it, and your Pact Weapon is a valid target for this spell no matter its form.

The primary thing isn't that it does too much, but that it does it too quickly (and thus makes it imminently dippable). Unfortunately, my hexblade cantrip takes the biggest thing that makes people want to dip Paladin into it and makes it accessible with a dip or one pick on Magic Initiate, so is probably still too good. I'm considering altering it to only work on simple weapons, to match Warlock base proficiency and limit its utility to non-Warlocks. Leaving the clause about it working with the Pact Weapon no matter its form would make the Pact Weapon gishlock able to use it with any weapon while limiting it to simple weapons for others.

My other design fear is that this is "too good." To the point that a Blade Pact Warlock has a cantrip tax. So... well, this is a better question for responding to Tanarii's post here:
Then make it an invocation. :smallcool: I think that a warlock can change invocations at each level up, right?
Yes you can. (PHB, Eldritch Invocations)

Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the invocations you know and replace it with another invocation that you could learn at that level.

[Segev]

Then make it an invocation. :smallcool: I think that a warlock can change invocations at each level up, right?
Yes you can. (PHB, Eldritch Invocations)

Defeats one of the goals of it: access at level 1. This is written under the assumption that the would-be gishlock NEEDS cha-to-melee or he's having to warp his build around early levels.

One thing I really dislike is when a build can be detected as having only come into play at higher level based on how badly it would function prior to a certain level. A gish warlock relying on dex 14 and dumping strength would be wading into melee with 14-15 AC (not bad), but basically only a dagger as his melee weapon. So either he actually plays more like a caster at level 1, which maybe isn't horrible (gishes often have to make that kind of choice early on, especially in 3e when they were fighter/mage multiclasses...not that those were ever any good), but is a bit "off" from the fantasy...or he is a really inept melee fighter that kind-of looks like a rogue.

Suddenly, at level 2, he pulls out the two-handed mega-weapon (okay, it's still only Simple, but...) and is going to town like a real warrior. And level 3, he gets to have the bigger, better, badder martial weapon of choice.

So... you may be right, but I prefer it as a cantrip so it enables smooth progression. I think limiting it to Simple melee weapons will probably be fine. ...probably.

[Sception]

My complaint is primarily flavor.

The problem with the hexblade's flavor comes down entirely to the designers wanting it to be the shadowfell / raven queen pact, but not wanting to meaningfully commit to any fluff details regarding the 5e's versions of the shadowfell and the raven queen, including the queen's personality, intentions, abilities, and even the canonicity of her very existence in published settings. Firm up the 5e raven queen and the hexblade lore starts to work and in particular starts to work with the mechanics. The curses, the specter, all of it. Even the weapon stuff. The flavor and tone are there, it just lacks any detail and definition because the designers lacked commitment to any aspect of 5e's Raven Queen at the time of Xanathar's release, and honestly even later when we did get more about here there was a noticeable lack in commitment to any particulars.

[Sception]

Defeats one of the goals of it: access at level 1. This is written under the assumption that the would-be gishlock NEEDS cha-to-melee or he's having to warp his build around early levels.

Cha to melee is more a requirement for later levels. It's not hard for a character to have suitable stats for both cha and dex or strength to function at level 1. Any melee character will want a +2 or better bonus in either strength or dex for AC purposes regardless.

[KorvinStarmast]

Defeats one of the goals of it: access at level 1.
Then play a cleric or a sorcerer.
Wizards and druids come on line at level 2
Everyone else, at level 3.

That's how this edition is built. (I mentioned this earlier)

And this, yet again, is an aspect of why the Hexblade is a mess. It messes with the above in-built structure.

For Malisteen: I am going to estimate that you are about 98 percent right on the issue at hand, which is WoTC not quite figuring out what they want out of the Raven Queen and thus the Hexblade mess is their result. (I will estimate that the other 2% is that Mearls hit the bong once or twice too often as they were going final on the new sub classes and such ....)

Here's what I'd rather they had done in XGtE: Celestial Patron and Raven Queen.
Add some invocations that lead one toward/to the Hexblade style of play as a Pact of the Blade feature.

[Segev]

Then play a cleric or a sorcerer.
Wizards and druids come on line at level 2
Everyone else, at level 3.

That's how this edition is built. (I mentioned this earlier)

And this, yet again, is an aspect of why the Hexblade is a mess. It messes with the above in-built structure.

Er... no? The reason they used a Patron was precisely because it comes online at level 1. This is not a valid point wrt Warlocks. They "come online" right away; the Pact is, if a subclass, a second one. The Patron is most certainly also part of their build.

A wizard "comes online" at level 1, as well, if you mostly care about being "a spellbook-using spellcaster." They do that very well right off the bat. So do Bards, for that matter (well, not the spellbook part).

Really, only Necromancers lack anything making them able to really play out their class fantasy at level 1 amongst the Wizard types. MAYBE Diviners, since there are so few divination spells. But they come online at level 2, and how. Necromancers don't really feel like anything other than murderous abjurers until level 5 or 6 (and if you say "5," then all wizards feel like Necromancers at that level if they want to).

No, a Warlock should expect to be able to start his directed build at level 1, based on how the class is structured. He definitely should not have to wait until level 3 and then completely change his play style.

[MThurston]

wow, still going and Hexblade needs zero changes.

[Segev]

wow, still going and Hexblade needs zero changes.

I clearly disagree with you on the opinion about Hexblade.


Actually, to just explain why I think it needs changes, I'll quote myself:
The Hexblade is a weird design, both in fluff and crunch. It is fairly clearly meant to complement the Pact of the Blade, as it is a bit clumsy when combined with any of the others. And while it can be made to work, the notion of "sentient weapons" as a Warlock Patron is a bit weird in and of itself. It is likely that its clear complementary status is meant to be a kind of salvation for the Pact of the Blade not working quite right due to pulling the Warlock towards melee when he clearly isn't designed for it.

In addition, a couple of the abilities feel more like "crap, Patrons need something at this level; what do we give this one?" than solid thematic links.

Thus, I have decided to try my hand at remodeling things to make additions to the Warlock class that allow you to choose a Patron other than a sentient weapon and still be able to fully use PAct of the Blade, by dissecting Hexblade and recreating its key powers in other ways.

[Kane0]

Huh. Final thought: What if "Hexblade" were a Fighter subclass? The Warlock equivalent to Eldritch Knight? Gets Pact of the Blade at level 3, Pact Magic, and a small selection of Invocations?

I’ve been of this position for years. Theres historical precedent as it was originally a full BAB partial caster. Plus theres no other way of getting pact casting other than warlock unlike regular casting which is just about everywhere. Plus plus theres a lot more design space than trying to tack full martial capability onto a caster, and again has precedent with the Eldritch Knight.


Kane0 that makes me feel like my OP came this close to nailing it. :smallwink:

Greats minds, eh?

In regards to taxes, i think a good comparison is between blastlock and bladelock, as both describe your primary means of dealing damage.
Blastlocks have agonising blast, repelling blast, eldritch spear, grasp of hadar and lance of lethargy. Bladelocks have Improved pact weapon, Thirsting blade, Lifedrinker, Eldritch smite and maybe eldritch armor. Thats 2-5 invocations either way.
And yes, one is a cantrip while the other is a pact. But warlocks are primarily (funky, out of the ordinary) casters so a slightly higher opportunity cost to take the gish route is probably warranted.

[Segev]

I’ve been of this position for years. Theres historical precedent as it was originally a full BAB partial caster. Plus theres no other way of getting pact casting other than warlock unlike regular casting which is just about everywhere. Plus plus theres a lot more design space than trying to tack full martial capability onto a caster, and again has precedent with the Eldritch Knight.That said, it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be something for Pact of the Blade warlocks. Just that the full-on gish build and the Hexblade name might fit Fighters more.



In regards to taxes, i think a good comparison is between blastlock and bladelock, as both describe your primary means of dealing damage.
Blastlocks have agonising blast, repelling blast, eldritch spear, grasp of hadar and lance of lethargy. Bladelocks have Improved pact weapon, Thirsting blade, Lifedrinker, Eldritch smite and maybe eldritch armor. Thats 2-5 invocations either way.

And yes, one is a cantrip while the other is a pact. But warlocks are primarily (funky, out of the ordinary) casters so a slightly higher opportunity cost to take the gish route is probably warranted.

My issue is more that the Pact has a high tax rate compared to its alternatives. (Of course, my own homebrewed pact (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24428485&postcount=14) then has a lot of invocations supporting it...but I think it stands very nicely on its own, even if it's very one-note that way.) The trouble with the Pact of the Blade, as I see it, is that it is a Pact Boon that I am not sure a Warlock can get much, if any, use out of without paying the taxes.

Eldritch Blast is so good by itself that other classes will take feats or even one-level dips to get it.

Pact of the Chain stands very easily on its own without Invocation support. In fact, I'd almost say it's probably the default Pact Boon, and if I were guessing at a narrative behind the Warlock's design, it might've been a straight-up class feature on its own, with the other two Pact Boons being things later thought of as cool and no place to put them, so they made the Familiar a Pact Boon and let people choose. This is pure conjecture, but what I'm getting at is that it stands on its own, and Invocation support is nice but not necessary.

Pact of the Tome CAN stand on its own, but is a bit weaker than Chain if it does. Extra cantrips are nice, and it's the choice for "I want to be a caster, through and through, without a pet or anything," but its primary support Invocation is SO GOOD that you're almost deliberately nerfing yourself if you don't take it. The Invocation frankly feels like the real Boon, but something the designers thought was too powerful without the Invocation tax.

Pact of the Blade, on the other hand... if you take NO damage cantrips... is a decent fallback weapon. If you're super-creative, you might find other uses for its ability to turn into anything you want, but it's not going to buy you true extra capability and it's giving you nothing that you couldn't have gotten better through a cantrip. So the feat taxes for it might be as high to optimize it as high as fully-supported eldritch blast, but they're far more NECESSARY to pay in order to make it a worthy Pact Boon. And at least one of them is just a gish tax (so you keep up with the paladin and ranger and barbarian).

And I think that's why they ultimately gave it its own Patron: unlike the other two, it CANNOT stand alone. The Pact of the Blade is a build, not a single choice, unless you want to basically foresake the use of your pact boon in any serious sense.

Sadly, the only solution I have right now is MORE taxes, making it MORE of a build (albeit freeing up the Patron choice). I guess shifting the cha-to-weapon-effect to it kind-of works. Still makes it a build, but at least now your pact weapon is as easy to use as eldritch blast.

[Sception]

I disagree. Chain familiar and tome are pretty much right on par in terms of strength with the original blade boon. Adding SAD for offense and armor for defense is out of line. Not Hexblade level 1 feature out of line, but out of line.

Edit: got beaten to it, but yeah, blade boon on its own does basically nothing, and for a blasty lock doesnt offer any usable invocations either, where chain is *amazing* out of the box and tome is useful out of the box and has a fantastic invocation.

A warlock who isnt looking to fight with weapons would absolutely be making a significant sacrifice by taking blade boon, while a warlock who does mean to fight in melee is exactly who should have the armor proficiencies anyway.

It's safe to add them to blade boon.

[Segev]

Disagree syrongly. Characters are assumed to have their weapons on hand 99 percent of the time, being able to summon one at will is at best a stylistic change that has nothing on the versatility of three cantrips from any class (guidance alone puts blade boon to shame), let alone the crazy power and versatility of a flying invisible familiar with hands that can carry and use magic items. Especially for a blaster warlock who doesnt care about weapon attacks. And that's to say nothing of the blade boon specific invocations which do literally nothing for non-weapon using warlocks.

Taking blade boon to access better ac would absolutelu be a significant cost paid for any watlock who didnt intend to be fighting with weapons in melee, and those are exactly the locks we want to have those proficiencies.

While I'm not fond of the idea of the Pact of the Blade giving armor proficiency by itself (for thematic reasons), I agree with you, Malisteen, on the point I bolded. This is the issue with Pact of the Blade. It spends an equal amount of words as the other two on describing itself, and it has flavor enough to make it sound cool, but if you really examine what it does, it's a weapon that ignores resistance that's ignored by magic. Any cantrip does the same. It is a weapon, so ignores magic resistance, at least, but it's still a thing that will be niche useful at best, by itself, and any other magic weapon the warlock could get would be almost as good. (The only real upside being that the warlock can be proficient with any one weapon at a time...and a dip in Fighter could give him that.) Pact of the Blade is a weak dip in half a level of fighter. And it's a half that is overshadowed by other Warlock abilities. It doesn't really grant flexibility OR power, unless you pay the hefty taxes.

[Petrocorus]

A PAM/GWM Hexbladelock with permanent self advantage (a 9th lvl spell ability mind you that they have access to in tier1 )
Just to be sure, the self-advantage you're talking about is the Darkness + Devil's Sight trick?
Because this trick can come at a high cost for the other members of the party.



If you want to package it in, I think the only reasonable way to do it is taking the boon removes Eldritch Blast. Or changes it into some kind of eldritch strike melee cantrip.

What about making Agonizing Blast reserved to Tome and Chain?



It's a problem to package armor into pact of the blade boon because it makes it far more powerful than the other boons as a defensive option appealing to blaster locks.


I disagree. Chain familiar and tome are pretty much right on par in terms of strength with the original blade boon. Adding SAD for offense and armor for defense is out of line. Not Hexblade level 1 feature out of line, but out of line.
Malisteen and Segev already said what i was going to say on this particular point.
But i will had a little comparison.

In effect, the only relevant thing that Blade is giving you on its own, was a proficiency and the weapon counting as magical.
Tome giving you the same thing plus the SADness with Shilelagh, plus 2 other cantrips (one of them probably being Guidance).
You cannot Shillelagh an heavy weapon, but blade doesn't help you with this neither actually because of armor proficiencies impeding a full Str build..
So Tome is explicitly doing the same thing as Blade but better, and then some.

The only reason to take blade pre-Xanathar is to access Thirsting Blade, and now, the only reasons are Thirsting Blade plus using Hex Warrior with an heavy weapon. Blade is nothing but a Boon tax on this, while Tome and Chain have their own usefulness.

At level 3, Chain can outscout whole classes designed for scouting and it's a single feature better than the whole set of feature of some subclasses (you know which one).

[P. G. Macer]

What about making Agonizing Blast reserved to Tome and Chain?



I can see two problems with this. The first is that it pushes back AB to Level 3, adding a whole level where the blasting Warlock’s main attack option is unavailable, making it subpar to a heavy crossbow user.

The more salient concern is that it precludes the possibility of future supplements adding additional pact boons, e.g. the Pact of the Talisman from the Class Feature Variants UA. It’d be clunky to add to each future Boon, “This boon qualifies as a prerequisite for the Agonizing Blast Invocation”, even if Specific Beats General means that it would technically work.

[Tanarii]

In effect, the only relevant thing that Blade is giving you on its own, was a proficiency and the weapon counting as magical.
Tome giving you the same thing plus the SADness with Shilelagh, plus 2 other cantrips (one of them probably being Guidance).
You cannot Shillelagh an heavy weapon, but blade doesn't help you with this neither actually because of armor proficiencies impeding a full Str build..
So Tome is explicitly doing the same thing as Blade but better, and then some.
Shillelagh can only be used with clubs and quarterstaff. That's acceptable right up until you find a magic weapon.

[Sception]

Shillelagh can only be used with clubs and quarterstaff. That's acceptable right up until you find a magic weapon.

Once you find a magic weapon, pact blade is also obsoleted, and it didn't come with guidance & some other cantrip of choice.

Blade boon does nothing for blasters, while tome & chain do a lot. Letting blade boon grant medium armor & shield proficiency won't obsolete tome or chain for blasty locks for the same readon that valor doesn't obsolete lore or glamour for casty bards.

It's a problem on hexblade because it comes on top of hexblade's curse, which is already an option on par with that offered to blasters by other patrons. The same is not the case for blade boon.

[Zalabim]

I'm completely certain that pact of the blade does not need Cha to melee to function. The only thing that benefit really helps with right now is the damage bonus from Lifedrinker, which sits right at the start of the problem area for pact of the blade already, both in level and in being the first necessary-invocation-too-many to keep up with agonizing blast. Fix the core problem of PotB keeping up with agonizing blast elsewhere, and Lifedrinker, with its max-charisma incentive, can go away and stop being a reason to need Cha to melee. Better effectiveness with a wider variety of spells is already reason enough to want charisma, and cost enough to justify better abilities for a Str or Dex bladelock. I'm even willing to say leave that part in Hex Warrior so there is a patron for that ability for those who want that fantasy. It's just not a core feature that pact of the blade requires. I have seen no argument to support it.


While I'm not fond of the idea of the Pact of the Blade giving armor proficiency by itself (for thematic reasons), I agree with you, Malisteen, on the point I bolded. This is the issue with Pact of the Blade. It spends an equal amount of words as the other two on describing itself, and it has flavor enough to make it sound cool, but if you really examine what it does, it's a weapon that ignores resistance that's ignored by magic. Any cantrip does the same. It is a weapon, so ignores magic resistance, at least, but it's still a thing that will be niche useful at best, by itself, and any other magic weapon the warlock could get would be almost as good. (The only real upside being that the warlock can be proficient with any one weapon at a time...and a dip in Fighter could give him that.) Pact of the Blade is a weak dip in half a level of fighter. And it's a half that is overshadowed by other Warlock abilities. It doesn't really grant flexibility OR power, unless you pay the hefty taxes.
It actually spends quite a lot more words describing itself than the other two boons. Yet this is pretty much my opinion on where the boon itself stands too. It should give a little more, be that little extra special, like the other boons are.

What about making Agonizing Blast reserved to Tome and Chain?
I prefer to not restrict existing options (at least not this basic and core of existing options), and instead add new options or benefits to address issues.

Malisteen and Segev already said what i was going to say on this particular point.
But i will had a little comparison.

In effect, the only relevant thing that Blade is giving you on its own, was a proficiency and the weapon counting as magical.
Tome giving you the same thing plus the SADness with Shilelagh, plus 2 other cantrips (one of them probably being Guidance).
You cannot Shillelagh an heavy weapon, but blade doesn't help you with this neither actually because of armor proficiencies impeding a full Str build..
So Tome is explicitly doing the same thing as Blade but better, and then some.
Shillelagh isn't better than Eldritch Blast with agonizing blast. A heavy weapon is. The tome warlock and the blade warlock otherwise have access to the same defenses, so no. Tome is not the same or better. It is the same defensively and worse offensively. It is the same or worse. And there is desire in this thread to address the defenses for blade pact. And there are more ways to address defenses than armor profiency.


The only reason to take blade pre-Xanathar is to access Thirsting Blade, and now, the only reasons are Thirsting Blade plus using Hex Warrior with an heavy weapon. Blade is nothing but a Boon tax on this, while Tome and Chain have their own usefulness.

At level 3, Chain can outscout whole classes designed for scouting and it's a single feature better than the whole set of feature of some subclasses (you know which one).
I do think pact of the blade lags behind in overall benefits (as the pact boon itself, even before any of them take invocations), but the question of "what is it good for without invocations" has been asked and answered in other threads. Pact of the blade is any one magic melee weapon that anyone can take from the warlock and use for at least a minute. Throw on Improved Pact Weapon and you have Magic Weapon, without costing a spell slot, without requiring concentration, without needing to actually have a weapon, but only for 1 minute. (And if you add in bonus action pact weapon creation to Improved Pact Weapon, the comparison is even closer.)

I even thought about expanding other invocations for this style, making it a "You make a magic weapon" pact boon, where all your weapon buffs work no matter who wields the weapon.

[Petrocorus]

I can see two problems with this. The first is that it pushes back AB to Level 3, adding a whole level where the blasting Warlock’s main attack option is unavailable, making it subpar to a heavy crossbow user.

The more salient concern is that it precludes the possibility of future supplements adding additional pact boons, e.g. the Pact of the Talisman from the Class Feature Variants UA. It’d be clunky to add to each future Boon, “This boon qualifies as a prerequisite for the Agonizing Blast Invocation”, even if Specific Beats General means that it would technically work.
My idea was actually to add a line inside the AB description. Something like: "You cannot benefit from this invocation if you have the Pact of the Blade Pact Boon."

This way, you can still take it at level 2 and you can still take it with any other Pact Boon.

It's kinda weird but it still feel more organic to me than forbidding a cantrip. Not to mention that Bladelock also need a range option sometimes.


Shillelagh can only be used with clubs and quarterstaff. That's acceptable right up until you find a magic weapon.
Fist, you may find a magic club or staff. It's unlikely, but not that much more unlikely than a magic halberd / maul / rapier.
There are several staves with bonus to attack and damage and only the Staff of Power (among them) seems to be made of metal, according to the illustration.
In likelihood, you'll find a shortsword or a longsword, unless DM fiat is involved. So, Blade let you use this +1 shortsword with your dex, Tome let you use a +0 club with your cha. Which one is best? And you're not going to use this +1 longsword because with the need for Cha, Dex, and Con, you Str is not going to be good unless you rolled stats and were very lucky.

Second, I won't say a magic weapon make the Pact of the Blade completely obsolete, like Malisteen, but it does remove one of its main benefit. And also one of the benefit of IPW.
So Blade at this point provides you with the proficiency and a protection against getting your weapon stolen. The latter is nice, but really situational, and the former in itself certainly is not worth a Pact Boon.


I'm completely certain that pact of the blade does not need Cha to melee to function.

I'm completely certain Blade needs medium armor + shield to function.
It needs Cha to melee or heavy armor to function with heavy weapons.
Whether it is supposed to function with heavy weapons, that we can only speculate, but it seems so by reading the description.



The only thing that benefit really helps with right now is the damage bonus from Lifedrinker, which sits right at the start of the problem area for pact of the blade already, both in level and in being the first necessary-invocation-too-many to keep up with agonizing blast. Fix the core problem of PotB keeping up with agonizing blast elsewhere, and Lifedrinker, with its max-charisma incentive, can go away and stop being a reason to need Cha to melee. Better effectiveness with a wider variety of spells is already reason enough to want charisma, and cost enough to justify better abilities for a Str or Dex bladelock. I'm even willing to say leave that part in Hex Warrior so there is a patron for that ability for those who want that fantasy. It's just not a core feature that pact of the blade requires. I have seen no argument to support it.

Cha to melee does fix the Lifedrinker issue and to some degree the comparison with EB.



Shillelagh isn't better than Eldritch Blast with agonizing blast.

You're right, but that was not my point.
I didn't say Shillelagh was better than EB, i said it was better than Pact of the Blade in itself as written. This making Tome better than Blade because it's basically a better Blade plus two other cantrips.



A heavy weapon is.

I agree that you're not going to keep up with EB with 2 attacks with a single-handed weapon. Unless you have a source of bonus damages.



The tome warlock and the blade warlock otherwise have access to the same defenses, so no. Tome is not the same or better. It is the same defensively and worse offensively. It is the same or worse.

It is the same defensively (though i could make a point about Resistance if that cantrip wasn't lame) but how is it worse offensively compare to a finesse pact weapon? And you're not going to use a heavy weapon because of the MADness.
And Tome also provide utility.



And there is desire in this thread to address the defenses for blade pact. And there are more ways to address defenses than armor profiency.

Armor proficiency is the simplest and most efficient way. It is the way that has been chosen for all other melee-focused subclasses of caster classes.

So, what are your other way? If it is to design a spell or invocation that will be a better version of Mage Armor, then i don't see the point.



I do think pact of the blade lags behind in overall benefits (as the pact boon itself, even before any of them take invocations), but the question of "what is it good for without invocations" has been asked and answered in other threads. Pact of the blade is any one magic melee weapon that anyone can take from the warlock and use for at least a minute. Throw on Improved Pact Weapon and you have Magic Weapon, without costing a spell slot, without requiring concentration, without needing to actually have a weapon, but only for 1 minute. (And if you add in bonus action pact weapon creation to Improved Pact Weapon, the comparison is even closer.)

I even thought about expanding other invocations for this style, making it a "You make a magic weapon" pact boon, where all your weapon buffs work no matter who wields the weapon.
So your point is that Pact of the Blade is basically a way to emulate the Magic Weapon spell for another party member at a lower cost?
And you need the Boon plus an Invocation to get this?
Basically you need a Boon and an Invocation (two level 3 features) to do the job of the Forge Cleric's level 1 feature.

I am 200% sure this is not what it is intended to do, nor what it is advertised to do, nor what most of players expect it to do.
Not to mention this can become obsolete soon if magic weapons are easily available.
And no, Thirsting Blade, Lifedrinker and Eldritch Smite and IPW cannot work with another weapon, and only IPW works for another PC.

[Segev]

I sincerely dislike just giving armor proficiency with Pact of the Blade for similar reasons to my distaste for Hexblade: it's not in keeping with what a boon is or does. Pact Boons give you a [thing] that empowers you. Chain gives you a super-familiar. Tome gives you a book of magical spells. Blade gives you an omniweapon.

It's probably just because it's after midnight and I'm thus not all there, but what if we go full He-Man with it? "When you summon your blade, you may transform your body. If your pact weapon takes the form of a Finesse weapon, you replace your Dexterity score with your Charisma score, if your Charisma score is higher. Otherwise, you replace your Strength with your Charisma if your Charisma is higher."

Still doing the SAD thing, but now it's a much bigger boon, comes with a transformation, and ... probably is a bit too silly. Eh. I don't really like it, but I'll leave it here for discussion anyway.


REally, just trying to brainstorm ideas that could give it that "something special" to make it a worthy Boon, while focusing on it being a weapon, not on it giving proficiency with things other than itself. Another issue I haven't got a good solution for is the magic weapon thing. You don't want it to obsolete the pact boon weapon. And right now, the best they've come up with is letting you lock its form and make the magic weapon unable to be taken from you.

Warlocks don't have many touch spells, or I'd suggest the Pact Weapon should be able to deliver them.

What if magic weapons bonded as pact weapons never required atunement? Or, rather, the pact of the blade gave an extra atunement slot that could only be used on a weapon that is bonded as the pact weapon?


There seem to be two schools of thought regarding attributes: One says that having the Gishlock need either Str + Heavy Armor + Cha or Dex + Medium Armor + Cha is a good design goal, and that they don't need to be SAD to make their gishing work. The other says that they need to be SAD.

I'm not really sure which is true.


Edit to add:

Or we could lean heavily into it being a magic weapon. It functions as written, but it also is a +X weapon, where X is half your proficiency, rounded down. At 5th level, choose a Uncommon magic weapon; your pact weapon can turn into that weapon as one of its forms. At 13th level, choose a rare weapon it can become.

Bonding a magic weapon just adds that magic weapon to the list of weapons it can become, and it gains the +X bonus or it’s own, whichever is higher. You are attuned to all magic weapons you can conjure your pact blade as, and they do not count against the number of atonement a you can maintain.

[Kane0]

Pact of the blade is any one magic melee weapon that anyone can take from the warlock and use for at least a minute. Throw on Improved Pact Weapon and you have Magic Weapon, without costing a spell slot, without requiring concentration, without needing to actually have a weapon, but only for 1 minute. (And if you add in bonus action pact weapon creation to Improved Pact Weapon, the comparison is even closer.)


... I had legitimately never thought of that. My mind is blown!

It's not just a magic weapon for you. You can make any magic weapon and toss it to the party meatshield to go to town with for a minute at a time, and most combats don't last a minute. At level 3 you can guarantee that your party bruiser is doing full damage against resistant enemies or will always have a real, non-improvised weapon available if the party is caught in an unarmed situation. That's tremendous party utility even if you yourself never have need of it since you'll be Eldritch Blasting all day!

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

This thread is longer then I feel like reading. Here's how I'd nerf the subclass if I was going to.

Expanded spell list: change Shield for Heroism, Possibly get rid of some of the smite spells, it feels like it's taking too much from paladins.

Hexblades curse: remove the damage and add it to the level 6 ability

Hex Warrior: No more shields for you.

Accursed specter: I hate this thing it doesn't match my idea of either the raven queen or the class itself. Since I removed some of the survivability of this class. When you hit a cursed enemy deal damage equal to your proficiency bonus and gain the same amount of temp hp.

Armor of Hexes: perfect

Master of hexes: perfect

[Sception]

As mentioned, you need either cha to melee or heavy armor to wield heavy weapons effectively, without which melee hexblades are back behind blasters in damage output.

You also need cha to melee in mid levels if you want the bladelock to be able to freely alternate between weapon attacks and offensive spells, otherwise their spell attacks and save DC are going to start lagging far enough behind their weapon attack bonus that casting getd relegated to buff and utility spells exclusively. Which isnt a fundamental problem, but clashes with the vision of gishing that many players have. At low levels the problem hasn't had a chance to show up, and at end game levels you've had enough asis to max two attack stats, but in the middle levels its an issue, especially with warrior types wanting more actual feats.

A non-armor-proficiency AC boost for bladelovks seems to be adding complication for complication's sake, and would have to be worded very carefully to not stack with armor proficiency a bladelock picked up elsewhere. If you want to tie it closer to the boon itself, that's easy, just say the pact blade grants the warlick proficiency with medium armor & shields only while its being held or carried by the warlock, rolling the knowledge of how to effectively wear armor into the fighting skills that the boon grants.

[MThurston]

I clearly disagree with you on the opinion about Hexblade.


Actually, to just explain why I think it needs changes, I'll quote myself:

Yep. Not much to say. Hexblade is pretty awesome from the start. It only seems less if you don't take pact of the blade but not really.

Its a perception thing. Hexblade refers to your ability to make a blade weapon. One could use a mace. So right from the start people have issue. All because of the word blade.

But let's look at the ability. You can touch a weapon and make it bonded to you. This doesn't have a Pact preference. Any of them can work with this.

Most people have issues with the way warlocks get powers. I see it as role playing material.

Some would say warlocks are too powerful starting out the gate. I would say they suffer for this in late levels.

But the warlock is a great character and hexblade is a great design.

My Hexblade has an AC of 22 and is the tank of the group. Pretty freaking cool if you ask me. I however took pact of the blade because I am a front line fighter. But if anyone had taken fighter, I would have went Tome. I would still have taken improved pact weapon to make it a ranged weapon.

[Sception]

Accursed specter: I hate this thing it doesn't match my idea of either the raven queen or the class itself.


It may not match your idea of these things, but it does match the designers' ideas. 5e's Raven Queen may no longer be a god of the dead, but she still reigns over a region of the shadowfell, a plane of the dead and the undead, and she specifically has a hobby of snatching the souls of the dead on their way to the afterlife to add them to her collection of forgotten secrets and sorrows. Grabbing the ghosts of your enemies after you kill them and forcing them to serve you for a time before presumably passing them on to her collection is very fitting with 5e's Raven Queen and probably the most direct mechanical connection of the hexblade class to her.

As for the rest of the hexblade patron, it isn't just a subclass about blading, it's equally if not more a subclass about hexing. Making your victim's ghost serve you after death is another curse you're layering on top of them, along with your hexblade's curse and spells like hex and phantasmal killer. Though admittedly I'd like to see more of the spell list pointed that way. Maybe trade Shield and Blink for Bane and Bestow Curse.

The spectre feature again factors into the shadowfell connection, the hexblades aren't just any intelligent weapons, they're a specific collection of cursed intelligent weapons forged by the Raven Queen (presumably for the purpose of spreading the misfortunes and tragedies she craves for her collection), and forged from the same material as the Shadowfell itself, allowing them to sever souls from their mortal bodies. Hence Blackrazor's soul-harvesting abilities, and hence the hexblade warlock's ability to cut the soul from their victims and temporarily use it as a servant.


I definitely grant that this stuff is really poorly defined in the hexblade patron lore description in Xanathar's, and isn't much better described Mordenkeinen's either, since the 5e designers seem loathe to commit to any specific fluff regarding 5e's version of the Raven Queen. But well defined or not, the connection is still there, and the specter ability is still a pretty important part of the Hexblade's tone as published.

That still doesn't mean you shouldn't patch it out as part of homebrew changes if it doesn't match your vision of the patron. You wouldn't be the only one it feels weird for. If I were to change the Hexblade for flavor rather than balance reasons, though, I'd personally go in the opposite direction. If anything the specter is the Hexblades *most* flavorful ability, albeit a flavor that several people seem not to like, but I'd rather ramp up that particular flavor rather than cut it out. Add more curse spells to the patron spell list as previously mentioned, add more soul-capture stuff to the subclass features. Maybe let the hexblade collect 'soul tokens' from their victims and then give them a few things they can spend those tokens on - summoning a token as a spector, interrogating it per speak with dead, consume it for healing, maybe spend it for a smite like damage boost, etc. Would need to be work shopped some, clearly. But still, point is I'd personally rather put more emphasis on that aspect of the class rather than remove it entirely. IMO it would do a lot to give the hexblade a more distinct flavor and mechanical identity.

[Sception]

As mentioned, you need either cha to melee or heavy armor to wield heavy weapons effectively, without which melee hexblades are back behind blasters in damage output.

You also need cha to melee in mid levels if you want the bladelock to be able to freely alternate between weapon attacks and offensive spells, otherwise their spell attacks and save DC are going to start lagging far enough behind their weapon attack bonus that casting getd relegated to buff and utility spells exclusively. Which isnt a fundamental problem, but clashes with the vision of gishing that many players have. At low levels the problem hasn't had a chance to show up, and at end game levels you've had enough asis to max two attack stats, but in the middle levels its an issue, especially with warrior types wanting more actual feats.

A non-armor-proficiency AC boost for bladelovks seems to be adding complication for complication's sake, and would have to be worded very carefully to not stack with armor proficiency a bladelock picked up elsewhere. If you want to tie it closer to the boon itself, that's easy, just say the pact blade grants the warlick proficiency with medium armor & shields only while its being held or carried by the warlock, rolling the knowledge of how to effectively wear armor into the fighting skills that the boon grants.

[Kane0]

If I were to change the Hexblade for flavor rather than balance reasons, though, I'd personally go in the opposite direction. If anything the specter is the Hexblades *most* flavorful ability, albeit a flavor that several people seem not to like, but I'd rather ramp up that particular flavor rather than cut it out. Add more curse spells to the patron spell list as previously mentioned, add more soul-capture stuff to the subclass features. Maybe let the hexblade collect 'soul tokens' from their victims and then give them a few things they can spend those tokens on - summoning a token as a spector, interrogating it per speak with dead, consume it for healing, maybe spend it for a smite like damage boost, etc. Would need to be work shopped some, clearly. But still, point is I'd personally rather put more emphasis on that aspect of the class rather than remove it entirely. IMO it would do a lot to give the hexblade a more distinct flavor and mechanical identity.

Agreed, having the ‘warrior’ patron separate from the ‘hexing’ patron seems like a good move both thematically and mechanically.
Tokens might be a bit clunky though, ‘locks already have a lot on their plate without an extra resource thrown into the mix. Discrete features with their own long and/or short rest cooldowns should work just fine. Speaking with dead and similar would be a nice touch, or even a forced feign death effect. We could even hack up the undying patron for usable parts, kill two stones with one bird.

I personally linking my ‘warrior’ to Giants, the Ordning, Empyrians and other big immortals. I call it the Titan.
Bit of a work in progress though, embiggening yourself is a bit one-note. The Rune Knight UA had some interesting bits that could be repurposed.

[MThurston]

As mentioned, you need either cha to melee or heavy armor to wield heavy weapons effectively, without which melee hexblades are back behind blasters in damage output.

You also need cha to melee in mid levels if you want the bladelock to be able to freely alternate between weapon attacks and offensive spells, otherwise their spell attacks and save DC are going to start lagging far enough behind their weapon attack bonus that casting getd relegated to buff and utility spells exclusively. Which isnt a fundamental problem, but clashes with the vision of gishing that many players have. At low levels the problem hasn't had a chance to show up, and at end game levels you've had enough asis to max two attack stats, but in the middle levels its an issue, especially with warrior types wanting more actual feats.

A non-armor-proficiency AC boost for bladelovks seems to be adding complication for complication's sake, and would have to be worded very carefully to not stack with armor proficiency a bladelock picked up elsewhere. If you want to tie it closer to the boon itself, that's easy, just say the pact blade grants the warlick proficiency with medium armor & shields only while its being held or carried by the warlock, rolling the knowledge of how to effectively wear armor into the fighting skills that the boon grants.

This is a joke. I have a 22 AC. Half-plate +1, Ring of Protection and a Shield +1. Rocking a +2 Dex. I also have 92 HPs at level 8. I tank for my group up in the front mixing it up.

Warcaster helps out greatly as does improved pact weapon that makes your weapon a focus.

[Zalabim]

As mentioned, you need either cha to melee or heavy armor to wield heavy weapons effectively, without which melee hexblades are back behind blasters in damage output.
With Xanathar's Improved Pact Weapon, Finesse weapons are just above blasters and get higher AC from dexterity too. Dexterity bladelocks just work, until level 11 when cantrips get their second improvement then even if they had the full value of Lifedrinker they'd still be behind. If cha to melee makes heavy weapons work, then heavy weapons already work up to level 11, because a Cha warlock with a heavy weapon has no inherent better defenses than a Str warlock with a heavy weapon. After lifedrinker level, even with full value from lifedrinker, they'd still be worse off than they were at lower levels and still fall behind at level 17.


You also need cha to melee in mid levels if you want the bladelock to be able to freely alternate between weapon attacks and offensive spells, otherwise their spell attacks and save DC are going to start lagging far enough behind their weapon attack bonus that casting getd relegated to buff and utility spells exclusively. Which isnt a fundamental problem, but clashes with the vision of gishing that many players have. At low levels the problem hasn't had a chance to show up, and at end game levels you've had enough asis to max two attack stats, but in the middle levels its an issue, especially with warrior types wanting more actual feats.
So not only is this only a preference (instead of a necessity), for many spells the difference is very minor. A +3 difference in charisma (where the higher has 50% success rate) on 5th level fireballs means the lower charisma caster still deals an average of 90% of the damage. So no, their offensive spells really aren't going to lag behind. Eldritch Blast lags behind. While Bards, Clerics, Wizards, Paladins, Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, and Monks all live with having special ability saving throws not always based on the same attribute as their best attacks, what makes warlocks specially deserve to freely alternate between weapon attacks and offensive spells, melee attacks and ranged attacks, with no tradeoffs? Is it because their pact magic slots means they're not even guaranteed to have a spell slot to spare for an offensive spell? Good thing they have spells that are both offensive and defensive at the same time and don't even all require a spellcasting attribute.

A non-armor-proficiency AC boost for bladelovks seems to be adding complication for complication's sake, and would have to be worded very carefully to not stack with armor proficiency a bladelock picked up elsewhere. If you want to tie it closer to the boon itself, that's easy, just say the pact blade grants the warlick proficiency with medium armor & shields only while its being held or carried by the warlock, rolling the knowledge of how to effectively wear armor into the fighting skills that the boon grants.
I never said AC boost. As far as I'm concerned, temp HP is the warlock way. And recovering real HP. And punishing attackers.

So Blade at this point provides you with the proficiency and a protection against getting your weapon stolen. The latter is nice, but really situational, and the former in itself certainly is not worth a Pact Boon.
I prefer to say the latter is stuff inherent to cantrips already and the former certainlly is not worth a pact boon. It should have another benefit, one linked to using the weapon, and not Charisma to melee, because again, that's stuff inherent to cantrips already. I'm talking about things like "When you kill an enemy with your pact weapon, you can regain a spell slot up to half your warlock level, rounded up. Once per long rest." or "When you hit an enemy with your pact weapon, you can gain (value) temporary hp, or increase the value of temporary hp you already have, up to twice your warlock level." In 4E, warlock's pact boon was a thing they gained for each time an enemy they had cursed, died. It was different for each patron, but I think that's the flavor to capture for the right boost to blade boon.

I'm completely certain Blade needs medium armor + shield to function.
It needs Cha to melee or heavy armor to function with heavy weapons.
Whether it is supposed to function with heavy weapons, that we can only speculate, but it seems so by reading the description.
Shield proficiency could help a dex bladelock, but sword and shield kind of hinders spellcasting, especially as a reaction, unless they also get warcaster. A shield also interferes with the option to create a ranged weapon from Improved Pact Weapon (which otherwise helps with the spellcasting). A shield is useless with a heavy weapon. Medium armor wouldn't help a dex bladelock at all. It would help a heavy weapon bladelock, whether that's wielded with str or cha, by providing a low cost way to get similar AC to a dex bladelock. Add it all together and Medium armor + shield + cha to melee means there is no dex bladelock.
[Edit: Finished]

Cha to melee does fix the Lifedrinker issue and to some degree the comparison with EB.
It doesn't make lifedrinker not an extra invocation tax, it doesn't stop blade from falling behind agonizing blast (entirely so by 17th), and it encourages comparison by using the same build for both. It helps, but it's not a solution by itself.

You're right, but that was not my point.
I didn't say Shillelagh was better than EB, i said it was better than Pact of the Blade in itself as written. This making Tome better than Blade because it's basically a better Blade plus two other cantrips.

I agree that you're not going to keep up with EB with 2 attacks with a single-handed weapon. Unless you have a source of bonus damages.

It is the same defensively (though i could make a point about Resistance if that cantrip wasn't lame) but how is it worse offensively compare to a finesse pact weapon? And you're not going to use a heavy weapon because of the MADness.
And Tome also provide utility.
Mending this, and my counterpoint is that shillelagh is not. It is the same or worse, for the half of the game where blade is easily competing with agonizing blast. The same damage as a finesse weapon and the same defenses as a heavy weapon. Worse AC than using a finesse weapon and worse damage than using a heavy weapon. Shillelagh doesn't even provide it's own stick, and can't be shared or given away like magic stones. It's the extra utility part that the blade boon is lacking. The more the boons have differences besides damage, the better.


Armor proficiency is the simplest and most efficient way. It is the way that has been chosen for all other melee-focused subclasses of caster classes.

So, what are your other way? If it is to design a spell or invocation that will be a better version of Mage Armor, then i don't see the point.
Not to discount the existing tradition of having a restricted invocation that is in a way an improved version of a universal invocation (and thus some version of Eldritch Armor if that's what you like), I think the benefits can be granted on existing, under-budget features in the build and tied mechanically and thematically to the blade itself. Additional ways to gain hp and absorb damage, instead of aiming for super high AC. I haven't been shy about my goals or my crazy ideas.

So your point is that Pact of the Blade is basically a way to emulate the Magic Weapon spell for another party member at a lower cost?
And you need the Boon plus an Invocation to get this?
Basically you need a Boon and an Invocation (two level 3 features) to do the job of the Forge Cleric's level 1 feature.

I am 200% sure this is not what it is intended to do, nor what it is advertised to do, nor what most of players expect it to do.
Not to mention this can become obsolete soon if magic weapons are easily available.
And no, Thirsting Blade, Lifedrinker and Eldritch Smite and IPW cannot work with another weapon, and only IPW works for another PC.
My point here is just that I've given this a lot of thought, and a lot of iteration, and considered many angles, like "what if each of the invocations was altered to work no matter who wields the weapon. Doesn't the hexblade fluff say something about you making such magic weapons?" Obviously even improved pact weapon has benefits that only apply to the warlock already.

Here's another crazy thought. Remembering the improved pact weapon line in the UA, Thirsting Blade, level 5, two attacks. Blistering Blade, level 11, three attacks. Breathless Blade, level 17, four attacks. No need for lifedrinker, just trade up the invocations as you level.

[NaughtyTiger]

My Hexblade is the tank of the group. 92 HPS and an AC of 21.

I have a 22 AC. Half-plate +1, Ring of Protection and a Shield +1. Rocking a +2 Dex. I also have 92 HPs at level 8.

ooh, somebody got another magic item last night...

[Sception]

If cha to melee makes heavy weapons work, then heavy weapons already work up to level 11, because a Cha warlock with a heavy weapon has no inherent better defenses than a Str warlock with a heavy weapon.

A cha warlock with a heavy weapon can afford to put a 14 into dex for medium armor. A strength warlock cannot afford to do so without cutting unacceptably into their constitution or relegating their spellcasting to buffs and utility - which, for the record, I personally don't have much problem with, but it conflicts with the view many others have of what a gish should be.



While Bards, Clerics, Wizards, Paladins, Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, and Monks all live with having special ability saving throws not always based on the same attribute as their best attacks

Battle master DCs are based on their weapon attack stats. With extremely few exceptions, the primary offense of these classes depend on more than one stat apart from monks, and monks are often thought to be too weak offensively to begin with. Past the lowest levels valor bards and weapon clerics aren't gishy spellswords that alternate between weapon attacks and spells, they're just spellcasters with better armor, and split attack stats are a significant part why that is.


what makes warlocks specially deserve to freely alternate between weapon attacks and offensive spells, melee attacks and ranged attacks, with no tradeoffs?

The tradeoffs are taking blade boon instead of an independently useful boon and sinking most or all of your invocations into damage taxes instead. Attacking with a weapon instead of a spell is an aesthetic difference that doesn't need a cost. Switching between melee and ranged is nice, but is not a huge enough thing that it needs a major cost beyond the boon and invocations described.


I never said AC boost. As far as I'm concerned, temp HP is the warlock way. And recovering real HP. And punishing attackers. This could work, but you run into a potential issue where if you give the warlock enough non-AC defense boosts to function like a fully armored melee combatant without armor, that same warlock can dip a single level into fighter (or fighters can dip a few levels into warlock), to have all those temp hit points and such on top of good AC. Abilities can be carefully worded to avoid this, but just letting bladelocks wear armor is a much simpler solution with fewer possibilities for problematic interactions.


Add it all together and Medium armor + shield + cha to melee means there is no dex bladelock.
No dex primary bladelock, no, but that's kind of the point of cha to melee regardless. 14 dex for medium armor is still enough of a dex secondary to have a dexy feel, imo. Rapier is still perfectly on par with longsword for sword & board builds.

[MThurston]

With Xanathar's Improved Pact Weapon, Finesse weapons are just above blasters and get higher AC from dexterity too. Dexterity bladelocks just work, until level 11 when cantrips get their second improvement then even if they had the full value of Lifedrinker they'd still be behind. If cha to melee makes heavy weapons work, then heavy weapons already work up to level 11, because a Cha warlock with a heavy weapon has no inherent better defenses than a Str warlock with a heavy weapon. After lifedrinker level, even with full value from lifedrinker, they'd still be worse off than they were at lower levels and still fall behind at level 17.


So not only is this only a preference (instead of a necessity), for many spells the difference is very minor. A +3 difference in charisma (where the higher has 50% success rate) on 5th level fireballs means the lower charisma caster still deals an average of 90% of the damage. So no, their offensive spells really aren't going to lag behind. Eldritch Blast lags behind. While Bards, Clerics, Wizards, Paladins, Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, and Monks all live with having special ability saving throws not always based on the same attribute as their best attacks, what makes warlocks specially deserve to freely alternate between weapon attacks and offensive spells, melee attacks and ranged attacks, with no tradeoffs? Is it because their pact magic slots means they're not even guaranteed to have a spell slot to spare for an offensive spell? Good thing they have spells that are both offensive and defensive at the same time and don't even all require a spellcasting attribute.

I never said AC boost. As far as I'm concerned, temp HP is the warlock way. And recovering real HP. And punishing attackers.

I prefer to say the latter is stuff inherent to cantrips already and the former certainlly is not worth a pact boon. It should have another benefit, one linked to using the weapon, and not Charisma to melee, because again, that's stuff inherent to cantrips already. I'm talking about things like "When you kill an enemy with your pact weapon, you can regain a spell slot up to half your warlock level, rounded up. Once per long rest." or "When you hit an enemy with your pact weapon, you can gain (value) temporary hp, or increase the value of temporary hp you already have, up to twice your warlock level."

Shield proficiency could help a dex bladelock, but sword and shield kind of hinders spellcasting, especially as a reaction, unless they also get warcaster. A shield also interferes with the option to create a ranged weapon from Improved Pact Weapon (which otherwise helps with the spellcasting). A shield is useless with a heavy weapon. Medium armor wouldn't help a dex bladelock at all. It would help a heavy weapon bladelock, whether that's wielded with str or cha, by providing a low cost way to get similar AC to a dex bladelock. Add it all together and Medium armor + shield + cha to melee means there is no dex bladelock.

Cha to melee does fix the Lifedrinker issue and to some degree the comparison with EB.


You're right, but that was not my point.
I didn't say Shillelagh was better than EB, i said it was better than Pact of the Blade in itself as written. This making Tome better than Blade because it's basically a better Blade plus two other cantrips.


I agree that you're not going to keep up with EB with 2 attacks with a single-handed weapon. Unless you have a source of bonus damages.


It is the same defensively (though i could make a point about Resistance if that cantrip wasn't lame) but how is it worse offensively compare to a finesse pact weapon? And you're not going to use a heavy weapon because of the MADness.
And Tome also provide utility.


Armor proficiency is the simplest and most efficient way. It is the way that has been chosen for all other melee-focused subclasses of caster classes.

So, what are your other way? If it is to design a spell or invocation that will be a better version of Mage Armor, then i don't see the point.


So your point is that Pact of the Blade is basically a way to emulate the Magic Weapon spell for another party member at a lower cost?
And you need the Boon plus an Invocation to get this?
Basically you need a Boon and an Invocation (two level 3 features) to do the job of the Forge Cleric's level 1 feature.

I am 200% sure this is not what it is intended to do, nor what it is advertised to do, nor what most of players expect it to do.
Not to mention this can become obsolete soon if magic weapons are easily available.
And no, Thirsting Blade, Lifedrinker and Eldritch Smite and IPW cannot work with another weapon, and only IPW works for another PC.
[/QUOTE]

Hexblades use Cha to attack and damage with their bonded weapon. Which can be anything with improved pact weapon.

So you only need a Dex of 14 and you need 10 Str. So having a high Cha is easier.

So you don't need heavy armor or high Dex or Str.

[MThurston]

ooh, somebody got another magic item last night...

My group makes sure I have good gear. We found a set of full plate but I am only using it as half plate.

Some groups look out for each other.

[Segev]

Yep. Not much to say. Hexblade is pretty awesome from the start. It only seems less if you don't take pact of the blade but not really.

Its a perception thing. Hexblade refers to your ability to make a blade weapon. One could use a mace. So right from the start people have issue. All because of the word blade.Since you were responding to me, I'll assume this is meant to answer what I was saying. I think you missed my point, though. Hexblade, mechanically, is awesome. Some would argue too awesome (i.e. overpowered). As you note:


Some would say warlocks are too powerful starting out the gate. I would say they suffer for this in late levels.Interestingly, I have this issue not with Hexblade, but with a mere invocation or two: With Misty Visions, a Warlock is a better illusionist than the Illusionist Wizard until level 6, and arguably until level 11, but after level 11, the Illusionist catches up, and as he hits level 7 spells, he pulls ahead. This annoys me, because if you want to play an Illusionist, you have to ask the DM how long you'll spend at various levels, or you'll not get to play an illusionist for the game you're in. If your game isn't going to spend significant time at level 11 or higher, play a Warlock. You'll feel like an illusionist a lot more.

But I digress. My issues with Hexblade are in its fluff. Not because it "refers to a blade weapon," but because it frames itself as being a Patron that is an intelligent weapon. Then, because they needed to link it to something fixed, it's a weapon forged by a being of the Shadowfell. But it can be any such weapon, as long as it's named "Blackrazor" or is Blackrazor with the serial numbers filed off. Just like the Model T Ford could be obtained in any color you want as long as you want it in black.

But a sapient weapon Patron should be like the Black Blade Magus in Pathfinder: you should be WIELDING your Patron. The fantasy invoked by the notion of a sapient weapon granting you power that grows as you level is one of having this powerful magical item that you develop a bond with and learn to use in new and exciting ways. Instead, what does the Patron give you? Martial training, which is its clear intended mechanical role, a curse that lets you feel like you're a gish rather than a fighter, and then it kind of goes, "Huh, um... I don't know what to give you anymore. How about this random spectre-slave?" Sure, it's "justified" by the shadowfell connection, or possibly by the fact that your Patron is Blackrazorobviously a soul-eating swordweapon of some sort.

It's a mess, thematically. So much of a mess, and so poorly bound to its mechanics, that pallet swapping to a BETTER example is trivial. The Hexblade in my campaign has Baggy Nanna, a Night Hag, as her Patron. Nanna taught her how to fight and defend herself along with other tricks, and just recently sent the cockrel she keeps in the bag over her head out to deliver Baby's First Soul Bag to the burgeoning warlock in preparation for level 6 and the spectre thing.

Mechanically, it's clumsy. I quoted myself earlier, but I clearly didn't make myself clear there, so I'll rephrase: it's very obviously meant to patch Pact of the Blade. It's viewed by the designers that gishlocks need something to enable gishing from level 1, so they made a Patron. Yes, it MIGHT work with a non-bladelock pact, but it's obviously intended to go with that pact.


But let's look at the ability. You can touch a weapon and make it bonded to you. This doesn't have a Pact preference. Any of them can work with this.Which just means this Patron further weakens the Pact of the Blade while supposedly enabling it.

Let's think about this, shall we? If you take Hexblade and Pact of the Blade, but no supporting Pact of the Blade Invocations, what did you actually gain from Pact of the Blade that Hexblade wasn't already providing you? The abiltiy to change what your bonded weapon is, yes, that's probably nice, but in my experience, bladelocks have a preferred form for it, anyway. It can't be stolen? Meh, so rarely important that it's not worth a major class feature by itself.


Most people have issues with the way warlocks get powers. I see it as role playing material.The problem is that the Hexblade Patron is such a mess that it isn't really RP material. The fact that it's so messy it can be refluffed as just about any Patron means that it's not really a Patron; it's an alternate set of powers that a "real" Patron can give you. I'm all for swapping Patron powersets if you have a cool concept - a Succubus Patron who gives you the Archfey suite of powers would make tons of sense. An efreeti Patron who gives you a Fiend's suite of powers works, too.

The Hexblade should never have been a Patron. The fix I have is meant to take that Patron and break it down into other resources that enable the same playstyle more modularly, and which fix the highly dippable nature (though the hexblade cantrip is still something I could see a Paladin multiclassing or Magic Initiate-ing for, and so I am debating whether it's a good idea). I am leaving the SADness because the purpose of that fix is not to totally fix all problems, but just to make it not a Patron. (You'll note that, since I referenced the Hexblade Patron warlock in my game, I haven't forced anybody to use my fix. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean you can't have fun. It just...bugs me conceptually.)


But the warlock is a great character and hexblade is a great design.Warlock is a really neat class. Hexblade, as a Patron, is a mess of a design. It does one thing well that it was obviously meant to do: make Pact of the Blade a viable gish path...by making there be a Patron tax on it.


My Hexblade has an AC of 22 and is the tank of the group. Pretty freaking cool if you ask me. I however took pact of the blade because I am a front line fighter. But if anyone had taken fighter, I would have went Tome. I would still have taken improved pact weapon to make it a ranged weapon.Nobody is suggesting it's underpowered. If that's not the position this is meant to refute, I'm not sure what your point is, here. Sorry.

[MThurston]

You don't have to get your powers from a weapon. To be honest you are hurt by having it a weapon. This means that it has an ego. And ego weapons can not be reshaped or put i to a magical void.

You also have to work with the DM to have your powers awaken as the weapon levels up with you.

Instead you can fluff it as a power that was given to you. The fey could have a hexblade. Hexblades to me could be like Paladins. Each patron has its Hexblades.

[Segev]

You don't have to get your powers from a weapon. To be honest you are hurt by having it a weapon. This means that it has an ego. And ego weapons can not be reshaped or put i to a magical void.

You also have to work with the DM to have your powers awaken as the weapon levels up with you.

Instead you can fluff it as a power that was given to you. The fey could have a hexblade. Hexblades to me could be like Paladins. Each patron has its Hexblades.

In fact, as I said, the Warlock in my game has the Hexblade Patron refluffed to be a Night Hag.

But that's half the problem with it: it's so weak and anemic in flavor that you can fluff it as anything, but it's taking up the Patron slot. Far better, to me, to have it be some other set of lesser resources you can pick and choose from, leaving you free to take an actually-interesting Patron. One that is flavorful in its own right.

[Petrocorus]

I sincerely dislike just giving armor ..... comes with a transformation, and ... probably is a bit too silly. Eh. I don't really like it, but I'll leave it here for discussion anyway.

I see your point, but as long as the Warlock doesn't get a defence boost, he's not able to effectively go into melee.



There seem to be two schools of thought regarding attributes: One says that having the Gishlock need either Str + Heavy Armor + Cha or Dex + Medium Armor + Cha is a good design goal, and that they don't need to be SAD to make their gishing work. The other says that they need to be SAD.

My personal point is that one of this two proposal needs to be true. Which one is debatable.
But as long as the bladelock only gets light armor, he will have to pump up his dex, and still not avail to have a very good AC, so he won't be really at his place in melee.



Or we could lean heavily into it being a magic weapon. It functions as written, but it also is a +X weapon, where X is half your proficiency, rounded down. At 5th level, choose a Uncommon magic weapon; your pact weapon can turn into that weapon as one of its forms. At 13th level, choose a rare weapon it can become.

Bonding a magic weapon just adds that magic weapon to the list of weapons it can become, and it gains the +X bonus or it’s own, whichever is higher. You are attuned to all magic weapons you can conjure your pact blade as, and they do not count against the number of atonement a you can maintain.
I could get behind this. I was thinking of something like this for a homebrew Soulknife.


This is a joke. I have a 22 AC. Half-plate +1, Ring of Protection and a Shield +1. Rocking a +2 Dex. I also have 92 HPs at level 8. I tank for my group up in the front mixing it up.

Warcaster helps out greatly as does improved pact weapon that makes your weapon a focus.
But you get this AC because:
- You've got 3 AC-boosting magic item, not something every Warlock player can expect.
- You benefit from Hex Warrior, and the whole of the discussion is that Hex Warrior is probably too good where it is.

[ProsecutorGodot]

In fact, as I said, the Warlock in my game has the Hexblade Patron refluffed to be a Night Hag.

But that's half the problem with it: it's so weak and anemic in flavor that you can fluff it as anything, but it's taking up the Patron slot. Far better, to me, to have it be some other set of lesser resources you can pick and choose from, leaving you free to take an actually-interesting Patron. One that is flavorful in its own right.

Yea, it's not really all that good by default. My version of the Hexblade is a bit complex but actually ties into the Shadowfell/Raven Queen aspects, albeit tangentially.

The first requirement is death, or a near death experience, where you're approached by an aspect of death who offers an opportunity for life. You're given a vessel for an aspect of your soul that you trade for this opportunity to live and that vessel grants you additional powers. You're never truly whole from that point on but having the vessel with you and being able to imbue use its power into weapons or spells. Perhaps your power will grow beyond the scope of the deal and you can make efforts to reclaim that part of you in the far future. My Paladin/Hexblade, for example, was part of a noble waterdhavian family who misguidedly attempted to revive him with the help of the Cassalanter's. Something intervened in the Cassalanter's attempt to twist his soul into a devil, payment of a good soul to Asmodeous, and he was revived, the false diamond holding more than half of his lifespan (his youth) in exchange.

I guess at the same time as it being bad that its own flavor is lacking, it was a good thing too because I really like how it turned out. I only wish that making your own flavor for it was more because of preference as less because it lacks any of its own to start.

[Petrocorus]

With Xanathar's Improved Pact Weapon, Finesse weapons are just above blasters and get higher AC from dexterity too.
No, they're not.
At level 5,
EB + Agonizing Blast: (1d10 + Cha) x2 (SAD build)
Shillelagh + GFB/BB + Pact of the Tome: 1d8 +Cha + 1d8 + (potential 1d8 +Cha to a second target) (SAD build)
Pact of the Blade + Thirsting Blade + IPW: (1d8 +1 +Dex) x2 (MAD build)

So you're using more building resources, and you're still probably behind on average.



Shield proficiency could help a dex bladelock, but sword and shield kind of hinders spellcasting, especially as a reaction, unless they also get warcaster.
As with all arcane gishes and many divine gishes if they cannot justify that their weapon also is or holds a holy symbol.


A shield also interferes with the option to create a ranged weapon from Improved Pact Weapon (which otherwise helps with the spellcasting).
How many building resources do you need to get your IPW crossbow on par with EB?
Pact of the Blade + Thirsting Blade + IPW + XBE
And only then you get (1d10 +1 +Cha) x2 which is only slightly better than (1d10 +Cha) x2 that Agonizing blast on its own gives you.


A shield is useless with a heavy weapon.
As with any melee guy.


Medium armor wouldn't help a dex bladelock at all.

Yes it does until the dex bladelock's dex is maxed up. With 18 DEx, you still have a better AC with half-plate than with studded leather.



It would help a heavy weapon bladelock, whether that's wielded with str or cha, by providing a low cost way to get similar AC to a dex bladelock.

No, it doesn't help a Str bladelock build. Because if you make Str your primary and pump it up, you're probably not going to have 14 Dex, unless you sacrifice Con or Cha to some degree. Not in point-buy at least.



Mending this, and my counterpoint is that shillelagh is not. It is the same or worse, for the half of the game where blade is easily competing with agonizing blast.
You insist that EB + AB is better than Shillelagh and i keep saying i agree with you on this and that i was comparing Shillelagh to Pact of the Blade in term of respective melee power. I was not at all talking about EB or the respective power of casterlock against meleelock on this particular point when i made it, only of the different options of meleelock.


The same damage as a finesse weapon and the same defenses as a heavy weapon. Worse AC than using a finesse weapon
Worse AC than finesse weapon, if the finesse Bladelock can afford to pump up his Dex. Heck, the Tomelock may have an Invocation to spare on Armor of Shadows while the Bladelock has to "pay" for Thirsting Blade and maybe IPW.


and worse damage than using a heavy weapon.
As with any single-handed weapon.



Not to discount the existing tradition of having a restricted invocation that is in a way an improved version of a universal invocation (and thus some version of Eldritch Armor if that's what you like), I think the benefits can be granted on existing, under-budget features in the build and tied mechanically and thematically to the blade itself. Additional ways to gain hp and absorb damage, instead of aiming for super high AC. I haven't been shy about my goals or my crazy ideas.

There are already one Patron, and one Invocation that give TPH. And you cannot cumulate them de facto.



My point here is just that I've given this a lot of thought, and a lot of iteration, and considered many angles, like "what if each of the invocations was altered to work no matter who wields the weapon. Doesn't the hexblade fluff say something about you making such magic weapons?" Obviously even improved pact weapon has benefits that only apply to the warlock already.

And once again, this is very obviously not the intend of the feature nor the expectations most players have about it.
If you want to create a magic weapon for someone else, go build a Forge Cleric or an Artificer, this is not a gish job.

[Segev]

What if it was done just by cribbing eldritch blast, but making it tie to a weapon?

Eldritch Strike
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: weapon reach
Components: V, S, M (a melee weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous
Crackling energy sheathes the weapon you're weilding. Make a melee weapon attack. On a hit, the target takes an additional 1d10 force damage.

If you know any Invocations that improve eldritch blast, they apply to attacks enabled by this cantrip, as well.

When you reach higher levels, this spell enables you to make more attacks with the action used to cast it: two attacks at 5th level, three attacks at 11th level, and four attacks at 17th level. You can direct the attacks at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each attack.



MAD, because this isn't giving Cha to the attack roll. Incompatible with Booming Blade or other spells that have you make an attack as part of casting them, but compatible with spells that you cast THEN make an attack (and, interestingly, with shillelagh if you get ahold of it). WAY more attacks than anybody but the Fighter gets (and I think still more than he does, unless he takes PAM or the like). Same number of attacks as a blastlock, but adds weapon damage to it.

Same invocations as eldritch blast to make it better, so Agonizing Blast is now making it (weapon die)+(str or dex)+1d10+(cha) damage per hit, which is pretty big, but also is still only in melee.

Makes Thirsting Blade pretty useless. Would need to rewrite that and maybe rethink Pact of the Blade as something that should work with this but shouldn't NEED it.

[jas61292]

I see your point, but as long as the Warlock doesn't get a defence boost, he's not able to effectively go into melee.

If you don't have a decent defense, you can't effectively go into melee. This is 100% true. But that by itself is not enough. If you want to actually be a gish, then you need to be able to not just survive in melee, but actually be an asset there. And therefore you need actual good, powerful options for what to do in melee, otherwise you are just a bulky caster. And if you have both good defense and good melee ability, you cannot really be a full caster and still be balanced. That is the root of the problem with Hexblade.

Hexblade, as is, is a Warlock subclass. Warlocks are full casters. I know some people don't like using that term for them, but they get 9th level spells and the same progression of learning new spell levels as any other full caster, and casting is their main thing. I personally believe that it is straight up not possible to build a balanced subclass that makes a full caster a true "gish" because casting is so strongly ingrained in what they are that the only way martial ability will be good enough to be used is if it is practically on par with what a non-caster can do, and you should not be effectively giving away the full power of a classes abilities with a subclass (or even worse, with a minor class ability).

I mean, imagine for a second that instead of the Eldritch Knight, we had a subclass that gave the Fighter full Wizard casting. That would be ridiculous, stupid, and would be rightfully called out as such. But that is basically what the Hexblade is striving to be, just in reverse. A full caster that has good defense, solid melee ability, and resources to make that ability even stronger. Access to Paladin-like smites, and more. Its quite literally trying to be a full martial that is also a full caster. And you just simply cannot do that in a balanced way. I have stated a number of times that I think using Cha for attacks is a poor mechanical decision, but ultimately, I think that it is a symptom of the larger problem: trying to make a class that does both martial combat and casting as well as dedicated classes.

The fact is, the way ability scores work generally prohibits any one character from being too powerful at too many things without DMs granting you very specific magic items. A character can only be good at so much, with each class usually relying on one main stat, one secondary stat, and Constitution. And when it comes to characters getting stronger, this often means choosing between different abilities.

Does my paladin want more accurate and stronger attacks, or better auras and spells? Does my Monk want better attacks, or better Ki ability DCs? Does my Barbarian want better attacks, or more bulk and a higher unarmored AC? Even pure casters that often are only looked at as being single ability dependent have to think about this as they are the squishiest, and by focusing on that one stat, they are typically forgoing boosting their survivability. And when it comes to "Gish" characters, there is always going to be a choice. You see it with the Paladin example above, but its also true of Eldritch Knights and Bladesingers. Valor and Swords Bards too. Do I boost my spells, or do I boost my martial capability. Neither choice is necessarily right. But either way, it keeps things relatively balanced. Sure, a Swords Bard has some neat martial options, but they are also a caster. When they get an ASI, they can choose to be better at one or the other, and therefore are not stepping all over the toes of another class.

Hexblade throws that concept away. It wants to have it all. By having more than light armor (whether its medium or a theoretical heavy armor Hexblade), you can have as much Dex (or Str) as you will ever need starting from level 1. The decision other classes make ceases to be a decision. You boost Cha and get better at almost everything. That is not balanced and has no reason to exist, except to make the Hexblade something that in inherently too good.

If Hexblade is to exist in a balanced way, we need to get over the idea of trying to make them a super competent martial option. They can be good at physical defense, or good at martial offense, but they cannot be both while still being a warlock. Personally, I would prefer they were not a warlock at all, and instead a Fighter subclass, as you can give them plenty of powerful abilities if they are only partial casters. But if they are to stay as a Warlock subclass, I think the best solution would honestly be to get rid of any and all defensive boosts the class gives. We have a number of caster subclasses that make the character "melee" capable by making them bulkier without providing significant offensive benefit. I'd prefer to see one that does the reverse. Give me the glass cannon. And if you want to be more secure, multiclass. That's what its there for.

[Petrocorus]

What if it was done just by cribbing eldritch blast, but making it tie to a weapon?

Eldritch Strike
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: weapon reach
Components: V, S, M (a melee weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous
Crackling energy sheathes the weapon you're weilding. Make a melee weapon attack. On a hit, the target takes an additional 1d10 force damage.

If you know any Invocations that improve eldritch blast, they apply to attacks enabled by this cantrip, as well.

When you reach higher levels, this spell enables you to make more attacks with the action used to cast it: two attacks at 5th level, three attacks at 11th level, and four attacks at 17th level. You can direct the attacks at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each attack.



MAD, because this isn't giving Cha to the attack roll. Incompatible with Booming Blade or other spells that have you make an attack as part of casting them, but compatible with spells that you cast THEN make an attack (and, interestingly, with shillelagh if you get ahold of it). WAY more attacks than anybody but the Fighter gets (and I think still more than he does, unless he takes PAM or the like). Same number of attacks as a blastlock, but adds weapon damage to it.

Same invocations as eldritch blast to make it better, so Agonizing Blast is now making it (weapon die)+(str or dex)+1d10+(cha) damage per hit, which is pretty big, but also is still only in melee.

Makes Thirsting Blade pretty useless. Would need to rewrite that and maybe rethink Pact of the Blade as something that should work with this but shouldn't NEED it.
This cantrip in itself is probably too powerful, and can be accessed through feats.
And if the point is to help Bladelock, then i see two issues.
First, as with GFB/BB, you make a cast a spell action instead of an attack action, with may interfere with some other abilities.
Two, you're embedding the Extra Attack in the cantrip and make it compatible with EB Invocation and Shillelagh. Which will have as effect to make Tomelock even better at melee than they can be and easily strictly better than Bladelock in their speciality.
Unless you make special restriction to access this cantrip, which IIRC doesn't exist anywhere else in the game.

[MThurston]

In fact, as I said, the Warlock in my game has the Hexblade Patron refluffed to be a Night Hag.

But that's half the problem with it: it's so weak and anemic in flavor that you can fluff it as anything, but it's taking up the Patron slot. Far better, to me, to have it be some other set of lesser resources you can pick and choose from, leaving you free to take an actually-interesting Patron. One that is flavorful in its own right.

You as a player can do that. Its vague for this reason.

[Segev]

I mean, imagine for a second that instead of the Eldritch Knight, we had a subclass that gave the Fighter full Wizard casting. That would be ridiculous, stupid, and would be rightfully called out as such. But that is basically what the Hexblade is striving to be, just in reverse. A full caster that has good defense, solid melee ability, and resources to make that ability even stronger.

Hang on a moment, you give this a paragraph (a little more than I quoted), but I think it deserves more examination than that. "Imagine for a second that...we had a subclass that gave the Fighter full Wizard casting."

First off, I agree that the Hexblade Patron is not good, and will accept for argument that it gives too much. It does cost a subclass choice, but you've already acknowledged that with the hypothetical new fighter subclass.

I think, to compare apples to apples, we need to go ahead and make the Hexblade Fighter Subclass. Instead of full wizard casting, we'll give it Pact Magic and Invocations. In fact, we'll give it Pact of the Blade as a third level feature (no choice as to what pact it gets).

The Hexblade as a Fighter subclass.

Pact of the Blade
At level 3, you make a Pact with an Otherworldly Power whose nature you may or may not know. As a sign of this Pact, your Patron gives you a Pact Weapon. [Insert rules for Pact of the Blade]

Pact Magic
At level 3, when you make your Pact, your Patron teaches you 2 Cantrips and 2 First Level Spells. These cantrips and spells must be from the Warlock spell list, or the list given here. [List is what the Hexblade Patron adds to the Warlock list, or maybe doctored to be more martial.]

As you increase in level, you learn a new spell at every odd level. The maximum level spell you may know increases at every odd level, as well. You have 2 pact magic spell slots at the highest level spell you may know. You recover them after a Short or Long Rest. At level 11, you have three spell slots. At level 17, you have four. Each time you gain a level in Fighter, you may exchange one spell you know via Pact Magic for another you can legally know at that level.

Invocations
At level 3, you learn 2 Warlock Invocations. You must meet any prerequisites, using your Fighter level as your Warlock level. At each level of Fighter, you may exchange one Invocation you know for another you can legally know at that level.

You gain an additional Invocation at level 7, 10, 15, and 18.




You could probably stop there, with the Invocations substituting for other fighter Subclass features. It's a little on the powerful end, but I think the Fighter features you do get balance the Mystic Arcana you don't fairly well, and the extra attack and armor proficiencies and all will counterbalance the lost Invocations.

Definitely needs refinement, but it's a starting point (that I threw together in the time it took me to write this post).

[Sorinth]

Don't compare Hexblade being able to melee and have a good spell DC to spellcasters, compare it to the other Gish types. War Clerics aren't very likely to be keeping up in damage, Nature Clerics make better Gish than they do off Shillelagh, EK aren't really forced to prioritize Int because of their limited spell pool but imagine that someone did want to use some spells that rely on DC, they're going to have to give up some Str or Con to up their Int and that hurts them disproportionately more than the Warlock. You don't see people touting Bladesinger as a fantastic Gish either, because they sacrifice a lot on top of still being on one of the most fragile classes.

Hexblades get to do both melee and magic, suffering very little if any penalties for being a top performer in both. I'm struggling to find a better way to phrase this. An Evoker Wizard will be a great blaster, but bad in melee, a Hexblade will be great in both.

A war cleric isn't going to be attacking much except in the very early levels, it's going to use spells every rounds. Most attacks are going to be leveled spells and Spiritual Weapon which scales off spellcasting. It's the same with Bladesinger, they have better things to do then attack with a weapon and it has nothing to do with MADness. You could roll stats and get two 18s and those classes are still going to rarely use their melee attacks except in the early game because they are simply better off casting spells.

Warlock is different, they don't have enough spells to use them constantly like a real full caster can. That's why Warlock gets to add Charisma to his Eldritch Blast and other caster don't get similar bonuses to their cantrips, the expectation is that warlock is going to have to use his at will abilities most of the time instead of casting a leveled spell. His cantrip needs to compare with a regular attack to make up for his low number of spells.



You generally gain more than you lose, and since it's a one level dip the only thing you really "lose" is your capstone. The conquest paladin guide "The Wall of Fear (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?543427-The-Wall-of-Fear-A-Complete-Guide-to-the-Oath-of-Conquest)" has a pretty good summary of the interaction written up, I'd recommend reading through it.

For the record, I never intended to claim that the Paladin is MAD (certain subclasses are, Conquest and Redemption come to mind as more Charisma focused). I think it's fine that a non multiclassed Paladin will have to make tradeoffs, because unlike Monk they're not necessarily suffering for making those tradeoffs, they're just specializing in a different aspect of the class.

Sure you gain more than you lose which is why people do it. Just like a Wizard generally gains more then he loses by starting as Fighter to get Heavy Armor and Con saves. Does Fighter need to be fixed because people gain more then they lose from a 1 level dip?

[Petrocorus]

If you don't have a decent defense, you can't effectively go into melee. This is 100% true. But that by itself is not enough. If you want to actually be a gish, then you need to be able to not just survive in melee, but actually be an asset there. And therefore you need actual good, powerful options for what to do in melee, otherwise you are just a bulky caster. And if you have both good defense and good melee ability, you cannot really be a full caster and still be balanced. That is the root of the problem with Hexblade.
So far, i completely agree with you.



Hexblade, as is, is a Warlock subclass. Warlocks are full casters. I know some people don't like using that term for them, but they get 9th level spells and the same progression of learning new spell levels as any other full caster, and casting is their main thing. I personally believe that it is straight up not possible to build a balanced subclass that makes a full caster a true "gish" because casting is so strongly ingrained in what they are that the only way martial ability will be good enough to be used is if it is practically on par with what a non-caster can do, and you should not be effectively giving away the full power of a classes abilities with a subclass
I would infer that the Warlock is not really a full caster, despite having a full caster spell level progression.
Because of the limitation of spell known*, the limitation of the class spell list and more importantly the limitation of spell slots, the Warlock is just not really able to do a full caster job. He's more like a specialised caster. Or a 3/4 caster.

*The fact the Sorcerer has the same limit is another issue related to the Sorcerer.

(or even worse, with a minor class ability).
Yeah, the Rogue would probably want to speak to the writers about the Druid and the Chainlock scouting ability.



I mean, imagine for a second that instead of the Eldritch Knight, we had a subclass that gave the Fighter full Wizard casting. That would be ridiculous, stupid, and would be rightfully called out as such. But that is basically what the Hexblade is striving to be, just in reverse. A full caster that has good defense, solid melee ability, and resources to make that ability even stronger. Access to Paladin-like smites, and more. Its quite literally trying to be a full martial that is also a full caster. And you just simply cannot do that in a balanced way. I have stated a number of times that I think using Cha for attacks is a poor mechanical decision, but ultimately, I think that it is a symptom of the larger problem: trying to make a class that does both martial combat and casting as well as dedicated classes.

I'd agree on you analysis except that the Warlock is not going to be so good at both casting and melee.

First, the warlock who want to go in melee have to spend resource on it. PotBlade, Thirsting Blade, IPW maybe, Lifedrinker, plus Warcaster and or GWM/PAM. The other warlock can spend this resource on being a better caster with Tome, BoAS, Eldritch Sight, AB obviously, MoMF, and so on, and feat like Res (Con), Spell Sniper, and ASI focused on it.
So for the Warlock, becoming good in melee is costing him some of his casting potential.

Two, he's not going to be has good as a non-caster warrior. With Blade + Thirsting Blade + Lifedrinker, he gets what the warriors get for free.
They get many other goodies, like Reckless Attack, Smite, bonus ASI, etc. The warlock gets his spellcasting instead. With good things like Hex, but which also (normally) lacks things like Haste and Shield. And as it his, the non-Hexblade Bladelock is forced into a Dex build, so he's not going to be on par with a full warrior in damages. Even heavy weapon Hexblades will have a problem to match the damages of full warriors, will need a Eldritch Smite (another of his limited Invocation) to be able to nova, and will have less AC and HP.

So, i don't believe we're talking about someone who will be a full warrior and a full caster at the same time.
And i don't think this is what anybody advocates.



The fact is, the way ability scores work generally prohibits any one character from being too powerful at too many things without DMs granting you very specific magic items. A character can only be good at so much, with each class usually relying on one main stat, one secondary stat, and Constitution. And when it comes to characters getting stronger, this often means choosing between different abilities.

Does my paladin want more accurate and stronger attacks, or better auras and spells? Does my Monk want better attacks, or better Ki ability DCs? Does my Barbarian want better attacks, or more bulk and a higher unarmored AC? Even pure casters that often are only looked at as being single ability dependent have to think about this as they are the squishiest, and by focusing on that one stat, they are typically forgoing boosting their survivability. And when it comes to "Gish" characters, there is always going to be a choice. You see it with the Paladin example above, but its also true of Eldritch Knights and Bladesingers. Valor and Swords Bards too. Do I boost my spells, or do I boost my martial capability. Neither choice is necessarily right. But either way, it keeps things relatively balanced. Sure, a Swords Bard has some neat martial options, but they are also a caster. When they get an ASI, they can choose to be better at one or the other, and therefore are not stepping all over the toes of another class.

Hexblade throws that concept away. It wants to have it all. By having more than light armor (whether its medium or a theoretical heavy armor Hexblade), you can have as much Dex (or Str) as you will ever need starting from level 1. The decision other classes make ceases to be a decision. You boost Cha and get better at almost everything. That is not balanced and has no reason to exist, except to make the Hexblade something that in inherently too good.
This is all true, and this is the very problem this thread wants to fix. Either by moving this to Blade to have the Warlock pay a bigger price for it, or by replacing this with heavy armor proficiency, ot something else altogether. Or by simply stating that heavy weapon Bladelock should not exist.



If Hexblade is to exist in a balanced way, we need to get over the idea of trying to make them a super competent martial option. They can be good at physical defense, or good at martial offense, but they cannot be both while still being a warlock. Personally, I would prefer they were not a warlock at all, and instead a Fighter subclass, as you can give them plenty of powerful abilities if they are only partial casters. But if they are to stay as a Warlock subclass, I think the best solution would honestly be to get rid of any and all defensive boosts the class gives. We have a number of caster subclasses that make the character "melee" capable by making them bulkier without providing significant offensive benefit. I'd prefer to see one that does the reverse. Give me the glass cannon. And if you want to be more secure, multiclass. That's what its there for.
This is an idea i could get behind. I would really like that kind of subclass.
It is however much more work.

[Sorinth]

Self-advantage is a pretty huge deal for DPR (and it's related cousin, never hitting at disadvantage), and it scales with the various feats (EA,SS,GWM etc) deep into endgame. Other classes might get an advantage roll every three or four turns, but a Warlock has it almost permanently (well for 10 minutes two times per short rest early on). Obviously the frequency of advantage depends on party comp somewhat, but my experience is that I rarely have advantage when I desperately want it, unless i'm a class that can produce it at will (eg vengeance paladins, Barbarians, warlocks) so its a pretty big deal. As for the dpr of Barbarians, they have excellent DPR with reckless (significantly more than a fighter until the fighter gets a second feat), and are doing almost as much as a Hexblade (the extra crit range, +1-2 accuracy from pact weapon and extra flat damage modifiers puts it slightly ahead). Consider that an optimized fighter in the early levels is doing maybe 50% less dpr than both of those classes without advantage... It's so crazy.

As for MAD vs SAD. The big practical difference with making Hexblade MAD would be that their spellcasting would be significantly nerfed, as most would drop cha down to pump strength up. This would hit their EB damage, but more importantly it would hit their spell dc and attack modifiers.. Like on the order of +3 or +4 depending on build. That significantly nerfs the occasional party saving synaptic static that a lot of Hexblades use on occasion. I personally think that's fine for what is essentially supposed to be a melee character who largely uses their slots for selfbuffs.

Anyway, as far as con, normally people prioritize double ASIs for Cha/PAM/GWM or the sharpshooter feats first until late tier 3. Yea its not ideal, but again you have darkness, giving you what is essentially +4-5 AC and the untargetable to spells status. That's still strong pretty strong defensively, especially when you have extra hps/temp hps coming from various invocations/aoa and selfhealing etc

Advantage is great, whether it's coming from something you do, or from another party member doesn't really matter. Maybe it's just the tables I play at but self-advantage isn't that important because getting advantage for the whole party is so useful that players will use that.

Also I find that throwing up something like Darkness also makes the warlock a target since the enemies can and will target PCs using concentration spells that provide a big party buff. And there are plenty of monsters and spell caster that can throw a solid AOE effect into the darkness and create a failed concentration check.

[Zalabim]

No, they're not.
Yes, they are. In the way that +(X+1) to hit for Y damage is just ahead of +X to hit for Y damage. This is not a matter of opinions. I posted builds about this and everything.
Caster
St9 De14 Co15 In11 Wi13 Ch16
AC 13 (leather armor)
HP 10 (1d8+2)
Pact Magic (1 slot)
Cantrips (Eldritch blast, pick one)
1st-level (pick two)
+4 to hit, 1d8+2 damage, 80'/320' Light Crossbow
+4 to hit, 1d4+2/1d4 damage 20'/60' Dagger (Can TWF)
+5 to hit, 1d10 damage, 120' Eldritch Blast


Dexter
St9 De16 Co15 In13 Wi11 Ch14
AC 14 (leather armor)
HP 10 (1d8+2)
Pact Magic (1 slot)
Cantrips (Pick two)
1st-level (pick two)
+5 to hit, 1d8+3 damage, 80'/320' Light Crossbow
+5 to hit, 1d4+3/1d4 damage 20'/60' Dagger (can TWF)

Haxter
St16 De14 Co15 In9 Wi11 Ch13
AC 13 (leather armor)
HP 10 (1d8+2)
Pact Magic (1 slot)
Cantrips (Pick two)
1st-level (pick two)
+5 to hit, 1d6+3/1d6 damage, 20'/60' Handaxe (can TWF)
+5 to hit, 1d4+3/1d4 damage, 20'/60' Dagger (can TWF)
And here's where I say it's interesting to me that warlocks explicitly start with two daggers (so do rogues and sorcerers.)

Yes it does until the dex bladelock's dex is maxed up. With 18 DEx, you still have a better AC with half-plate than with studded leather.
Assuming they get half-plate and not Mage Armor or +1 studded leather or 20 dex first or just value stealth. I played a Dex ranger and never touched half-plate. It just never came up.

There are already one Patron, and one Invocation that give TPH. And you cannot cumulate them de facto.
And a spell, and feats, and other class's features, and yet, I still could, if that's what I wanted to do. It's not something I suggest to make them as sturdy as a barbarian. It's something to make them more sturdy than the Blasters, to take the edge off of continual melee combat, and to represent the nature of their boon. Imagine this: When you hit, you gain temp hp = weapon damage roll if you have temp hp, or half the weapon damage roll if you do not. I just cheated stacking.

I should say that AC/armor proficiency isn't a unique feature either. There's already a patron and an invocation for it.

All this is still petty. Changes to low level blade lock play are just to be nice. It's the level 11+ and 17+ problems that really hamper it. Up to level 10, it already basically works.

If Hexblade is to exist in a balanced way, we need to get over the idea of trying to make them a super competent martial option. They can be good at physical defense, or good at martial offense, but they cannot be both while still being a warlock. Personally, I would prefer they were not a warlock at all, and instead a Fighter subclass, as you can give them plenty of powerful abilities if they are only partial casters. But if they are to stay as a Warlock subclass, I think the best solution would honestly be to get rid of any and all defensive boosts the class gives. We have a number of caster subclasses that make the character "melee" capable by making them bulkier without providing significant offensive benefit. I'd prefer to see one that does the reverse. Give me the glass cannon. And if you want to be more secure, multiclass. That's what its there for.And this is fine too.

[Sorinth]

Hexblade, as is, is a Warlock subclass. Warlocks are full casters. I know some people don't like using that term for them, but they get 9th level spells and the same progression of learning new spell levels as any other full caster, and casting is their main thing.

People don't like using the term because they play very different from full casters. Ignoring bladelocks for a second, a blaster Warlock is going to be using Cantrips most of the time with the occasional leveled spell for critical moments. Compare that to the reall full casters who will use offensive cantrips in the early game, but after that they will rarely use a cantrip because there's always a more useful spell and they have the slots so they don't have to worry. It's the whole reason why Warlock gets Cha mod to damage from EB attacks to begin with and other caster don't. The expectation is that the Warlock has to use his at will abilities most of the time and therefore those at will abilities need to compare with regular attacks.

Charisma to the attack stat doesn't make Hexblade overpowered, it brings them in line with a Warlock spamming EB. If you find Hexblade dips to be overpowered then the answer is to fix those other classes. For Paladin, it means not making Charisma such an awesome stat for them since their primary stat is supposed to be Strength. For Bards, do people even Hexblade dip, I mean it's not terrible but I'm not sure it's worth it even for Valor/Swords bards?

[jas61292]

Charisma to the attack stat doesn't make Hexblade overpowered, it brings them in line with a Warlock spamming EB. If you find Hexblade dips to be overpowered then the answer is to fix those other classes. For Paladin, it means not making Charisma such an awesome stat for them since their primary stat is supposed to be Strength. For Bards, do people even Hexblade dip, I mean it's not terrible but I'm not sure it's worth it even for Valor/Swords bards?

As just a general game design rule, if you have an issue involving interactions with an element, which I will refer to as X, and the possible solutions are to either adjust X, or to adjust a ton of other different things that interaction with X, then the problem is clearly with X itself. As such, fixing the one element is a much better solution than fixing every interaction it has.

There is no problem with Charisma being a great stat for Paladins, because Paladins are expected to be melee combatants, and bumping up Charisma does not help them there. To get the benefits of high Charisma, they have to give something up. That was all fine and good until Hexblade appeared. Then suddenly what was not an issue became an issue. And its not just with Paladin. Its true of Bard and other classes too. The common element to all of these issues is Hexblade, and so the better solution is to change Hexblade, not to redesign significant parts of the game to adjust for unexpected ability synergy.

And as far as Charisma to attack for just single class Hexblades, maybe it does "brings them in line with a Warlock spamming EB." And if that was all Hexblade did, it would be fine. But it is not. It wants to not just be as good as Eldritch Blast, but to be as good a martial combatant as members of classes solely dedicated to that purpose. A caster that can make melee attacks with their casting stat is not a huge issue. A caster that can make melee attacks that do extra damage from curses, smites, and dedicated spells for that purpose, and also gets to use their casting stat for all of that, is a massive issue. Especially if you are also giving them the resources to be defensively bulky as well.

[Segev]

As just a general game design rule, if you have an issue involving interactions with an element, which I will refer to as X, and the possible solutions are to either adjust X, or to adjust a ton of other different things that interaction with X, then the problem is clearly with X itself. As such, fixing the one element is a much better solution than fixing every interaction it has.

There is no problem with Charisma being a great stat for Paladins, because Paladins are expected to be melee combatants, and bumping up Charisma does not help them there. To get the benefits of high Charisma, they have to give something up. That was all fine and good until Hexblade appeared. Then suddenly what was not an issue became an issue.

Why is it an issue with Hexblade, but not with Druid? Or even Magic Initiate: Druid? Is there an obvious better-than-d8 weapon the Paladin gets more out of using than going club-and-board? PAM can be done with a quarterstaff, so unless you've got a markedly superior to d8s weapon for your polearm, even that's not terribly convincing. The Glaive is a d10; I suppose that counts. There are Heavy Weapons he could be wielding might matter, and yes, Hexblade does enable them. Are they so much better for a Paladin that it's truly broken for the paladin to be wielding those compared to a d8 + shield?

[NaughtyTiger]

Yes, they are.

Yall were talking about with invocations. (Thru 14 i believe)
Petro laid out case at level 5 with invocations

Now you argue its better at level 1 without invocations...

Those are very different arguments

[jas61292]

Why is it an issue with Hexblade, but not with Druid? Or even Magic Initiate: Druid? Is there an obvious better-than-d8 weapon the Paladin gets more out of using than going club-and-board? PAM can be done with a quarterstaff, so unless you've got a markedly superior to d8s weapon for your polearm, even that's not terribly convincing. The Glaive is a d10; I suppose that counts. There are Heavy Weapons he could be wielding might matter, and yes, Hexblade does enable them. Are they so much better for a Paladin that it's truly broken for the paladin to be wielding those compared to a d8 + shield?

Personally I do not consider that as much of an issue as Hexblade.

Well... actually, I do personally have serious balance issues with the Polearm Master Feat in general, and how its stupidly easy access to a bonus action attack with modifiers totally overshadows other methods of doing as such. That is a very different conversation, but suffice it to say that, per my own rules that I just stated, I think PAM is something that should also be adjusted, and the table I play at most frequently does not use that feat. But again, that is a slightly different conversation.

As I said to start though, assuming that PAM is being treated as a perfectly good option that is not an issue in and of itself, I still don't see that example as nearly as big an issue as Hexblade. Part of that is that it is not as universally powerful as you already mentioned. Sure, a PAM build with a Shield that is all Cha based is a decent build. But it is also one particular niche that is not universally superior. Great Weapon builds have more power to them, for instance.

The other thing to keep in mind is the cost. For a martial class like Paladin, while there are certainly good features of the class at higher level, a single level dip is not bad. If you are already at level 5, or are starting at 6 or higher, there is almost no loss, offensively from doing so. And even at lower levels, pushing back extra attack is less painful (if you want it to be) when you can grab a melee cantrip, like Warlock can. Warlock, especially Hexblade, as far, far better synergy with Paladin than Druid. Not only is the Paladin that dips Druid going to be required to have a 13+ Wisdom score, but they are not picking up a potent offensive ability like the Hexblade dip is.

Magic Initiate, on the other hand, is arguably a steeper cost. As mentioned, for a martial, a single level dip is not too big a deal once you have Extra Attack. But giving up a feat is a massive deal. Those come only rarely. And in the specific mentioned build, you need not one, but two of them. That means not actually boosting your Omni-Ability until 12th level. If you take Magic Initiate at 4, then your can use your casting stat starting from there, but you are clearly an inferior combatant until at least level 8, and are going to have at least some disadvantage the rest of the way, as one who does not go that route will be practically a full ASI or Feat ahead.

In other words, what is better:

A paladin that is SAD on Charisma and has a short rest refresh smite spell slot and hexblade's curse with a choice of warlock cantrips and spells, or a paladin who is MAD with Cha and Str and doesn't get any of that other stuff, but who happens to get Paladin features one level earlier? Its pretty darn obvious to me that the former is far better. The latter might have a brief moment or two to shine at certain levels when they pick up something cool, but there are simply not enough good and powerful features for that to be the case most of the time.

On the other hand, which of these is better:

A guy who is SAD on Charisma but does 1d8+3 with PAM and a shield, or the guy who is a normal Paladin and thus MAD with Charisma secondary to Strength, but who does 2d6+4 with GWM? I don't think its so clear. One is bulkier, and one is more powerful. Maybe at the highest levels once you can really pump up Charisma the former might shine brighter, but the difference is small and doesn't show itself very much until far beyond the most common levels of play.

[WaroftheCrans]

This thread appears to be very hectic, and I'm not entirely sure what the overall theme here is supposed to be. Everybody seems to be arguing for a different thing, and I, for one, feel that it might be best to re-categorize all of the arguments/povs in here, perhaps into separate threads.

POVS I've noticed:
1) The hexblade should not exist in game, and our goal should be to remove it, while transferring much of its power to Pact of the Blade
2) Hexbade should be nerfed significantly, or at the very least not be so front loaded, so as to be less appetizing to multiclasses.
3) The followup to 2: Hexblade should be nerfed significantly, as it currently is the best patron.
4) Hexblade should be better at being a gish than it is at being a blaster, which currently isn't the case. Nerfs or Buffs/restructures should accomplish this.
5) Hexblade should not be the only warlock gish option
5a) Hexblade features should be moved to the pact of the blade
5b) Hexblade features should not be moved, but replicating them in Pact of the Blade is good.
6) Pact of the blade simply needs a buff

Where the thread starts derailing:
7) Hexblade is a flavor mess (I disagree, but its an opinion, who cares)
8) A gish which remains a full caster should not exist, as it steps on the toes of martials and casters by being both.
9) The debates on what sort of arrays an ideal warlock should have, the bizarre medleys that combine everything about warlock into one item, and other such peculiarities.

I've been watching this thread since I made my account, and I have to say that I'm somewhere between 5b and 6 on my point of view.
Everyone can feel free to ignore this, but right now this thread is just long strings of disparate arguments, and perhaps we can agree on a focus for this thread.

[MThurston]

Hang on a moment, you give this a paragraph (a little more than I quoted), but I think it deserves more examination than that. "Imagine for a second that...we had a subclass that gave the Fighter full Wizard casting."

First off, I agree that the Hexblade Patron is not good, and will accept for argument that it gives too much. It does cost a subclass choice, but you've already acknowledged that with the hypothetical new fighter subclass.

I think, to compare apples to apples, we need to go ahead and make the Hexblade Fighter Subclass. Instead of full wizard casting, we'll give it Pact Magic and Invocations. In fact, we'll give it Pact of the Blade as a third level feature (no choice as to what pact it gets).

The Hexblade as a Fighter subclass.

Pact of the Blade
At level 3, you make a Pact with an Otherworldly Power whose nature you may or may not know. As a sign of this Pact, your Patron gives you a Pact Weapon. [Insert rules for Pact of the Blade]

Pact Magic
At level 3, when you make your Pact, your Patron teaches you 2 Cantrips and 2 First Level Spells. These cantrips and spells must be from the Warlock spell list, or the list given here. [List is what the Hexblade Patron adds to the Warlock list, or maybe doctored to be more martial.]

As you increase in level, you learn a new spell at every odd level. The maximum level spell you may know increases at every odd level, as well. You have 2 pact magic spell slots at the highest level spell you may know. You recover them after a Short or Long Rest. At level 11, you have three spell slots. At level 17, you have four. Each time you gain a level in Fighter, you may exchange one spell you know via Pact Magic for another you can legally know at that level.

Invocations
At level 3, you learn 2 Warlock Invocations. You must meet any prerequisites, using your Fighter level as your Warlock level. At each level of Fighter, you may exchange one Invocation you know for another you can legally know at that level.

You gain an additional Invocation at level 7, 10, 15, and 18.




You could probably stop there, with the Invocations substituting for other fighter Subclass features. It's a little on the powerful end, but I think the Fighter features you do get balance the Mystic Arcana you don't fairly well, and the extra attack and armor proficiencies and all will counterbalance the lost Invocations.

Definitely needs refinement, but it's a starting point (that I threw together in the time it took me to write this post).

This is crazy.

You pick a patron at 1st and Hexblade is fine.

1. Pretend your are a hexblade for one of the other Patrons. You just get a different power from them. Think champion of that Patron.

2. You get your powers from the Raven Queen and you are her weapon.

3. You have a legendary weapon that levels with you. It gets more powerful as you level.

There is nothing wrong with hexblade. It is a great warlock and its not locked to pact of the blade. Which in itself doesn't have to be a blade. It can be a mace or a bow.

Most people can't wrap their minds around the warlock patron. Its easy to get over if you just come up with your own story.

[Segev]

This is crazy.

You pick a patron at 1st and Hexblade is fine.

1. Pretend your are a hexblade for one of the other Patrons. You just get a different power from them. Think champion of that Patron.

2. You get your powers from the Raven Queen and you are her weapon.

3. You have a legendary weapon that levels with you. It gets more powerful as you level.

There is nothing wrong with hexblade. It is a great warlock and its not locked to pact of the blade. Which in itself doesn't have to be a blade. It can be a mace or a bow.

Most people can't wrap their minds around the warlock patron. Its easy to get over if you just come up with your own story.

I'm sorry; I don't see how this is in any way a response to what you quoted from me. I was outlining how a 'Hexblade as a fighter subclass' might be structured, with an eye towards demonstrating that you could do it and it wouldn't be any more rejected as "overpowered" than the existing Hexblade patron is. You're talking about how Hexblade is fine as a Patron, compared to other Patrons, if I am parsing you correctly.

How does this relate to what I was talking about or demonstrating?

[stoutstien]

This thread appears to be very hectic, and I'm not entirely sure what the overall theme here is supposed to be. Everybody seems to be arguing for a different thing, and I, for one, feel that it might be best to re-categorize all of the arguments/povs in here, perhaps into separate threads.

POVS I've noticed:
1) The hexblade should not exist in game, and our goal should be to remove it, while transferring much of its power to Pact of the Blade
2) Hexbade should be nerfed significantly, or at the very least not be so front loaded, so as to be less appetizing to multiclasses.
3) The followup to 2: Hexblade should be nerfed significantly, as it currently is the best patron.
4) Hexblade should be better at being a gish than it is at being a blaster, which currently isn't the case. Nerfs or Buffs/restructures should accomplish this.
5) Hexblade should not be the only warlock gish option
5a) Hexblade features should be moved to the pact of the blade
5b) Hexblade features should not be moved, but replicating them in Pact of the Blade is good.
6) Pact of the blade simply needs a buff

Where the thread starts derailing:
7) Hexblade is a flavor mess (I disagree, but its an opinion, who cares)
8) A gish which remains a full caster should not exist, as it steps on the toes of martials and casters by being both.
9) The debates on what sort of arrays an ideal warlock should have, the bizarre medleys that combine everything about warlock into one item, and other such peculiarities.

I've been watching this thread since I made my account, and I have to say that I'm somewhere between 5b and 6 on my point of view.
Everyone can feel free to ignore this, but right now this thread is just long strings of disparate arguments, and perhaps we can agree on a focus for this thread.

just caught up on this thread. its actually pretty focused as far as hexblade disputes are concerned land it hasn't been locked by the mods yet lol.
there is some really good ideas on his regarding hexblades and are a lot better than my fix. hexblade as a fighter subclass is a new take that has the bones for a good idea.

[WaroftheCrans]

just caught up on this thread. its actually pretty focused as far as hexblade disputes are concerned land it hasn't been locked by the mods yet lol.
there is some really good ideas on his regarding hexblades and are a lot better than my fix. hexblade as a fighter subclass is a new take that has the bones for a good idea.

I agree, there are quite a few good ideas, but to me it seem unfocused. I suppose that's just me.

IMO, hexblades are good with SADness, as most warlocks are SAD.
The issue with AC for regular warlocks should be fixed with giving them Medium armor proficiency. No shields, but medium armor.

[Segev]

I agree, there are quite a few good ideas, but to me it seem unfocused. I suppose that's just me.

IMO, hexblades are good with SADness, as most warlocks are SAD.
The issue with AC for regular warlocks should be fixed with giving them Medium armor proficiency. No shields, but medium armor.

You're going to get this kind of lack of focus when the exact problem can't be agreed upon. That's part of the debate and discussion, even identifying what, exactly, is the issue.

For me, the primary issue is one you dismissed (point one in your 'this is a derail' list). So...yeah, disagreement even there!

[WaroftheCrans]

You're going to get this kind of lack of focus when the exact problem can't be agreed upon. That's part of the debate and discussion, even identifying what, exactly, is the issue.

For me, the primary issue is one you dismissed (point one in your 'this is a derail' list). So...yeah, disagreement even there!

I personally love the flavor of the hexblade (and this bias is probably what made me dismiss it), and when I made my first warlock, it was a hexblade not for the mechanics, but for "the fantasy" of a sentient weapon, an artifact from beyond the ages was calling out to my character specifically.
It's also a trope as old as time. Weapons have often been named, and been cited as sources of power.

One of the first great works of literature I read was The Song of Roland. Sir Roland had a nigh indestructible sword named Durendal, and many of the other characters had named blades. The sentience of a Hexblade weapon elevates the fantasy by a level, and allows it to more truly be the source of your powers.

It should be said that I read The Song of Roland in third grade, and the name of the blade is one of the few things that I remember from the story. It definitely had an influence on my first Hexblade.

[stoutstien]

I personally love the flavor of the hexblade (and this bias is probably what made me dismiss it), and when I made my first warlock, it was a hexblade not for the mechanics, but for "the fantasy" of a sentient weapon, an artifact from beyond the ages was calling out to my character specifically.
It's also a trope as old as time. Weapons have often been named, and been cited as sources of power.

One of the first great works of literature I read was The Song of Roland. Sir Roland had a nigh indestructible sword named Durendal, and many of the other characters had named blades. The sentience of a Hexblade weapon elevates the fantasy by a level, and allows it to more truly be the source of your powers.

It should be said that I read The Song of Roland in third grade, and the name of the blade is one of the few things that I remember from the story. It definitely had an influence on my first Hexblade.

The problem is hexblade doesn't really do any of that. If you tried to describe what the patron provides the warlock by only describing what it provides nothing about says hexblade.

[Kane0]

This thread appears to be very hectic, and I'm not entirely sure what the overall theme here is supposed to be. Everybody seems to be arguing for a different thing, and I, for one, feel that it might be best to re-categorize all of the arguments/povs in here, perhaps into separate threads.

POVS I've noticed:
1) The hexblade should not exist in game, and our goal should be to remove it, while transferring much of its power to Pact of the Blade
2) Hexbade should be nerfed significantly, or at the very least not be so front loaded, so as to be less appetizing to multiclasses.
3) The followup to 2: Hexblade should be nerfed significantly, as it currently is the best patron.
4) Hexblade should be better at being a gish than it is at being a blaster, which currently isn't the case. Nerfs or Buffs/restructures should accomplish this.
5) Hexblade should not be the only warlock gish option
5a) Hexblade features should be moved to the pact of the blade
5b) Hexblade features should not be moved, but replicating them in Pact of the Blade is good.
6) Pact of the blade simply needs a buff

Where the thread starts derailing:
7) Hexblade is a flavor mess (I disagree, but its an opinion, who cares)
8) A gish which remains a full caster should not exist, as it steps on the toes of martials and casters by being both.
9) The debates on what sort of arrays an ideal warlock should have, the bizarre medleys that combine everything about warlock into one item, and other such peculiarities.

I've been watching this thread since I made my account, and I have to say that I'm somewhere between 5b and 6 on my point of view.
Everyone can feel free to ignore this, but right now this thread is just long strings of disparate arguments, and perhaps we can agree on a focus for this thread.


For me personally:
- The name 'Hexblade' should have belonged to a fighter subclass (presumably as an equivalent to the EK featuring pact magic & curses)
- 'Sentient weapon' as a warlock patron is fine, but shouldn't be mixed with raven queen/soul manipulation and/or curses. We could have a Hag, Witch or other patron for those angles.
- The Blade Pact should be viable for warlocks who want to gish regardless of Patron

So for me the Hexblade as is should ideally be addressed on multiple fronts. But it is what it is, and the path of least resistance is just focusing on the third point.

[Segev]

The sentient weapon patron should have given the pact of the blade from level one, and had the blade itself be the patron, for the fantasy of the sentient weapon that empowers the warlock to be fulfilled.

Instead, it was a pact boon, and we later get a sentient weapon patron who has nothing directly to do with weapons and certainly doormat give you access to itself to wield. Hence why I hate the broken, messy flavor that doesn’t align with the mechanics.

[Kane0]

Hmm nah, I don't think I want all my blade pacts to be sentient.

[Segev]

Hmm nah, I don't think I want all my blade pacts to be sentient.
Which is fine. But that closes the design space for a sentient weapon patron, because anything that fails to be a sentient weapon you get to wield fails to live up to the fantasy implied. And patrons should not force a pact boon.

[WaroftheCrans]

The problem is hexblade doesn't really do any of that. If you tried to describe what the patron provides the warlock by only describing what it provides nothing about says hexblade.

Ok, so the point here is not that the flavor is bad from a standalone point of view, but that it doesn't mesh with the mechanics.
Really, most of the problem here could be fixed with better writing.

Hex Warrior and armor of hexes contribute to the flavor, you're being gifted with powers by a mighty blade that gives you prowess as a mighty warrior. Accursed Spectre should be reflavored to make it quite clear that its a warrior spirit that you're bringing out (is there such a monster?), perhaps its compelled to fight as a result of losing its duel with you.

Which leads us to Hexblade's curse. Needs something along the lines of "You select a worthy opponent, and focus on them, gaining knowledge of how to best fight them." (Mechanical text)

I think that can build into the fantasy well with some work by others (I'm a bit tired rn, been a long day.)

[Sorinth]

As just a general game design rule, if you have an issue involving interactions with an element, which I will refer to as X, and the possible solutions are to either adjust X, or to adjust a ton of other different things that interaction with X, then the problem is clearly with X itself. As such, fixing the one element is a much better solution than fixing every interaction it has.

Completely untrue, trying to redo X might be the easiest solution to your problem, but that doesn't mean it's the best or correct solution. You also have to consider X was brought in to address a problem, so by nerfing X your initial issue returns.


There is no problem with Charisma being a great stat for Paladins, because Paladins are expected to be melee combatants, and bumping up Charisma does not help them there. To get the benefits of high Charisma, they have to give something up. That was all fine and good until Hexblade appeared. Then suddenly what was not an issue became an issue. And its not just with Paladin. Its true of Bard and other classes too. The common element to all of these issues is Hexblade, and so the better solution is to change Hexblade, not to redesign significant parts of the game to adjust for unexpected ability synergy.

The claim is that Hexblade dip on Paladin overpowered right? And your argument is that he's overpowered because both his attack and aura have high bonuses, and the Paladin is only balanced if only one of those things is good and the other average, right?

In that case the Paladin was already a problem because if you simply rolled well you would have an overpowered character. That's why you should actually fix Paladin.

And I have yet to see a convincing argument that Bard is overpowered if they dip Hexblade.


And as far as Charisma to attack for just single class Hexblades, maybe it does "brings them in line with a Warlock spamming EB." And if that was all Hexblade did, it would be fine. But it is not. It wants to not just be as good as Eldritch Blast, but to be as good a martial combatant as members of classes solely dedicated to that purpose. A caster that can make melee attacks with their casting stat is not a huge issue. A caster that can make melee attacks that do extra damage from curses, smites, and dedicated spells for that purpose, and also gets to use their casting stat for all of that, is a massive issue. Especially if you are also giving them the resources to be defensively bulky as well.

A hexblade isn't as good at melee as a class solely dedicated to that purpose. Fighter will trounce Hexblade at melee. Straight Paladin, even Barbarian until Tier 3 (And that's a well known issue with Barbarian issue).

And he might have extra defensive bulk compared to casters, but he is most definitely behind compared the other melee builds.

And let's not forget, a Paladin/Warlock multiclass where the they use casting stat for everything already existed.

[Kane0]

Which is fine. But that closes the design space for a sentient weapon patron, because anything that fails to be a sentient weapon you get to wield fails to live up to the fantasy implied. And patrons should not force a pact boon.

I'm sure there's a way to have the cake and eat it too. All you really have to do is ensure the pact can provide a viable (not necessarily optimal) gish and the patron has features tied to your weapon. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

For example moving Eldritch Smite into the patron feature set. It's a nice to have rather than a base requirement for a gish, and also ties into using a weapon.

[Segev]

I'm sure there's a way to have the cake and eat it too. All you really have to do is ensure the pact can provide a viable (not necessarily optimal) gish and the patron has features tied to your weapon. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

For example moving Eldritch Smite into the patron feature set. It's a nice to have rather than a base requirement for a gish, and also ties into using a weapon.

See, where I'm coming from is, if "sentient weapon" is your Patron, one of the level 1 perks needs to be that you have the sentient weapon. You can't unlock all its powers at once, of course, but already it's given you at least one other Patron perk, and pact magic, and cantrips. But you have the weapon. This means that, if you later take Pact of the Blade....now you have two, for some reason?

And anything that isn't "you have the sentient weapon that is your Patron" falls apart for me as working thematically with that notion.

[Sorinth]

See, where I'm coming from is, if "sentient weapon" is your Patron, one of the level 1 perks needs to be that you have the sentient weapon. You can't unlock all its powers at once, of course, but already it's given you at least one other Patron perk, and pact magic, and cantrips. But you have the weapon. This means that, if you later take Pact of the Blade....now you have two, for some reason?

And anything that isn't "you have the sentient weapon that is your Patron" falls apart for me as working thematically with that notion.

Does the Fiend Patron walk around side by side with his level 1 Warlock? If not why would you expect the Hexblade Patron.

There's no reason a super powerful sentient weapon should only be bonded to a single Warlock. The weapon should be able to bond with multiple warlocks, not just the one guy carrying it.

Remember, the regular old sentient weapons from the DMG aren't powerful enough to create warlocks, the Hexblade Patron sentient weapon is orders of magnitudes more powerful.

[Segev]

Does the Fiend Patron walk around side by side with his level 1 Warlock? If not why would you expect the Hexblade Patron.

There's no reason a super powerful sentient weapon should only be bonded to a single Warlock. The weapon should be able to bond with multiple warlocks, not just the one guy carrying it.

Remember, the regular old sentient weapons from the DMG aren't powerful enough to create warlocks, the Hexblade Patron sentient weapon is orders of magnitudes more powerful.

Because weapons - even artifacts - are not known for their otherworldly extended reach. Fiends, Archfey, and Great Old Ones are.

You may as well suggest that Jack the Fifth Level Fighter is able to give you fighter training from across the continent.

Edit to add: And, even if you don't get it right away, the notion that your Patron is a sentient weapon loses a lot of appeal if you're never going to wield it. Which means it should be a sixth, tenth, or fourteenth level power to get it. All of which are still redundant with the PAct of the Blade.

[Sorinth]

Because weapons - even artifacts - are not known for their otherworldly extended reach. Fiends, Archfey, and Great Old Ones are.

You may as well suggest that Jack the Fifth Level Fighter is able to give you fighter training from across the continent.

Edit to add: And, even if you don't get it right away, the notion that your Patron is a sentient weapon loses a lot of appeal if you're never going to wield it. Which means it should be a sixth, tenth, or fourteenth level power to get it. All of which are still redundant with the PAct of the Blade.

The fact that even artifacts aren't powerful enough or sentient enough to extend their reach across the world/planes should show you just how powerful the Hexblade Patron is. It's not some random family heirloom that gets passed down to you. The Hexblade patron is more along the lines of a Demi-God whose body is in the form of a weapon.

If you start the game as a level 1 warlock with some sort of super powered sword then you would be a target for virtually every power hungry NPC in the game. Why wouldn't my level 10 fighter who hears about some young adventurer with a legendary sword just come along and take it from your level 1 guy?

Not wielding the weapon is no more disappointing then your GOO warlock to never getting to summon Cthulhu.

[Kane0]

See, where I'm coming from is, if "sentient weapon" is your Patron, one of the level 1 perks needs to be that you have the sentient weapon. You can't unlock all its powers at once, of course, but already it's given you at least one other Patron perk, and pact magic, and cantrips. But you have the weapon. This means that, if you later take Pact of the Blade....now you have two, for some reason?

And anything that isn't "you have the sentient weapon that is your Patron" falls apart for me as working thematically with that notion.

Well you can bind an existing magic weapon using the blade pact, so that plays nice if you get the weapon at level 1. So for it's level 1 features you just have to make sure it doesn't count as magical or give you the ability to summon it at will, give it other benefits instead.

[ArtIzon]

I mean this in a polite way: I have no idea why I constantly see discussions about this on a variety of different forums and subreddits.

Move CHA to attack & damage rolls to Pact of the Blade. Make the proficiency bonus to damage only apply to attacks with your Hex-Warrior-ed weapon.


That's it. You don't have to do anything else. Now it's not a perfect dip and the damage isn't as overwhelming with EB. Hexblade is supposed to be the "melee warlock" and it still is, it's just no longer the most optimal multiclass for every CHA gish build in the game. Added bonus: Blade Pact doesn't suck anymore and melee Warlocks of other patrons can be SAD now. We've promoted build variety and fixed a glaring balance oversight with two changes and without adding additional features.

[Zalabim]

Yall were talking about with invocations. (Thru 14 i believe)
Petro laid out case at level 5 with invocations

Now you argue its better at level 1 without invocations...

Those are very different arguments
And that case was wrong. I have always been talking about from level 1 through level 10, and how it changes afterwards.


Well you can bind an existing magic weapon using the blade pact, so that plays nice if you get the weapon at level 1. So for it's level 1 features you just have to make sure it doesn't count as magical or give you the ability to summon it at will, give it other benefits instead.

The fact that even artifacts aren't powerful enough or sentient enough to extend their reach across the world/planes should show you just how powerful the Hexblade Patron is. It's not some random family heirloom that gets passed down to you. The Hexblade patron is more along the lines of a Demi-God whose body is in the form of a weapon.

If you start the game as a level 1 warlock with some sort of super powered sword then you would be a target for virtually every power hungry NPC in the game. Why wouldn't my level 10 fighter who hears about some young adventurer with a legendary sword just come along and take it from your level 1 guy?

Not wielding the weapon is no more disappointing then your GOO warlock to never getting to summon Cthulhu.

Because weapons - even artifacts - are not known for their otherworldly extended reach. Fiends, Archfey, and Great Old Ones are.

Edit to add: And, even if you don't get it right away, the notion that your Patron is a sentient weapon loses a lot of appeal if you're never going to wield it. Which means it should be a sixth, tenth, or fourteenth level power to get it. All of which are still redundant with the PAct of the Blade.
The idea of a powerful sentient weapon as your patron that you carry, wield, and unlock and grow in power is interesting. Feel free to homebrew one that does that, because that's not what the Hexblade patron in the book is about. In the Hexblade patron offered, the weapons are a conduit for influence, not the source for the influence. It's as if the patron is Arioch instead of Stormbringer.

You may as well suggest that Jack the Fifth Level Fighter is able to give you fighter training from across the continent.I sense a new business opportunity. Maybe team up with a Illusionist to ship out major images and programmed illusions of your training routine, until the inevitable fallout as their friendship-turned-business gets soured by the introduction of wealth.


I mean this in a polite way: I have no idea why I constantly see discussions about this on a variety of different forums and subreddits.

Move CHA to attack & damage rolls to Pact of the Blade. Make the proficiency bonus to damage only apply to attacks with your Hex-Warrior-ed weapon.


That's it. You don't have to do anything else. Now it's not a perfect dip and the damage isn't as overwhelming with EB. Hexblade is supposed to be the "melee warlock" and it still is, it's just no longer the most optimal multiclass for every CHA gish build in the game. Added bonus: Blade Pact doesn't suck anymore and melee Warlocks of other patrons can be SAD now. We've promoted build variety and fixed a glaring balance oversight with two changes and without adding additional features.
Because that is in no way a satisfying resolution to many of the problems people have. Each of those things is either not true or not desired. [Edited: Added colors for clarity.]

[ArtIzon]

Because that is in no way a satisfying resolution to many of the problems people have. Each of those things is either not true or not desired.

I'm going to need you to be more specific regarding which things are "not true." I'll concede it regarding the "melee warlock" comment (because I'm not sure any specific design intent has been given by WotC) but for anything else I'm going to need an example of how what I said was untrue.

As for "not desired..." not desired by whom? You, apparently. I desire these changes, therefore they are desired. I have seen other people mention them before as well. Not sure what you're trying to say there. Are you making up what words mean? Intentionally operating under narrower definitions? I must say you've confused me here.

Either way, what I mentioned addresses (and arguably fixes) the Hexblade's balance problems -- and if you believe it doesn't, I'm going to need you to tell me why.

But then again, aside from effects on balance, how else would we measure the success of a change to the mechanics? The "problems people have" are not necessarily the actual problems with the class. Are you under the impression that everyone who has problems with the class is correctly identifying the source of those problems? How are the "correct" problems determined? What problems do people have that aren't addressed by what I mentioned and why are they of import?

To be more specific regarding mis-attributing the source of problems, there are many new DMs who see the damage numbers on Sneak Attack and freak out, so they nerf it in some ridiculous way. This leads to Rogue players feeling largely useless in combat because Rogues are intended to get Sneak Attack every turn. That is a fairly obvious one, but I am sure there are more insidious ones that will slip under the noses of more experienced players and DMs.

Lastly, for what it's worth, it literally does not matter one whit if the things I or anyone else brings up are the things people want fixed, largely because of the above-mentioned caveat. The quality of a game or game system is determined by its balance and the cohesion of its systems, period. If a change to the game improves these attributes, it's a net improvement. So if that's not the pretense you're also arguing under...the entire notion of improving or fixing anything kinda flies out the window, doesn't it? Again, how else would you measure the improvement?

[ArtIzon]

Because that is in no way a satisfying resolution to many of the problems people have. Each of those things is either not true or not desired. [Edited: Added colors for clarity.]

Please explain to me how those things are untrue. You are not supporting your points and your attempt at refutation is therefore weak. You are merely asserting that what I said is untrue, which is unhelpful to anyone. Except maybe people who disagree with what I said, and don't want to think too hard about it?

1. In what way is Hexblade NOT a glaring oversight with regard to balance? Why do you think it shows up so often in multiclassing optimization discussions? Just for the cool factor? No, because it's a stupidly overtuned 1-level dip for CHA casters and Paladins. The only way I can think of that your statement could make sense is that WotC saw what I see and released it anyway, therefore it wouldn't technically qualify as an oversight because it fits inside their bass-ackwards definition of balance (the same one that let Fireball be by far the best damage spell for two entire spell levels, period, because some idiot on the design team values nostalgia more than balance).

2. Blade Pact does suck. It requires more effort to be good than other, similar options. Further, there is nearly no mechanical reason whatsoever to invest in Blade Pact while Hexblade exists. That's literally the only way you can define "good" in this game: "can the same effect, or a better version of the same effect, be achieved more effectively, with less resource investment?" Is it completely unviable? No, but it "sucks" relative to other options, which, in an ideal 5e, nothing would. The change I suggested would make it suck less.

3. No additional features were added. They were moved. CHA to attack/damage was moved to Blade Pact. Proficiency Bonus to damage was modified. It is still essentially the same feature. Etc. etc. I get the impression you are not reading what I write at all.

4. How was build variety not promoted? Now the 1-level Hexblade dip isn't nearly as powerful.

Further reading on how to argue on the internet since you apparently are having trouble backing up your points (and responding to the rest of mine), since you've provided no supporting evidence whatsoever: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html Your statement currently stands at a DH3. I mean this in a nice way, but I do not stand to learn anything from this discussion unless it moves up, which is unfortunate. Generally speaking, discussion is more edifying -- particularly when you are trying to correct someone -- if you explain how and why they are wrong. Like, are you trying to antagonize me? Because that's kinda what it seems like when you don't give any actual answers to anything I'm saying. Did my authoritative, flippant tone in the initial post offend you or something?

Anyway, this is a good article regarding game balance (though it was written about a competitive card game, many of the same principles apply): http://www.sirlin.net/articles/game-balance-and-yomi

I suppose I should have known better than to try and solve problems on the internet. I keep forgetting people don't like simple, easy solutions. :confused:

[Kane0]

I mean this in a polite way: I have no idea why I constantly see discussions about this on a variety of different forums and subreddits.

Ranger
Sorcerer
Mystic
Hexblade
Surprise
Stealth

♫ It's the circle
The circle of threads ♫

[Segev]

The idea of a powerful sentient weapon as your patron that you carry, wield, and unlock and grow in power is interesting. Feel free to homebrew one that does that, because that's not what the Hexblade patron in the book is about. In the Hexblade patron offered, the weapons are a conduit for influence, not the source for the influence. It's as if the patron is Arioch instead of Stormbringer.And that is the problem. It is a lame Patron that promises one thing and delivers something lesser in its fluff. They clearly couldn’t decide how to flavor it because they start talking up the sentient weapon angle then hem and haw about how maybe it’s the crafter.

When being a crafter of sentient weapons is not a source of being a power the way being an archfey or the like is. It’s what they do worth their power rather than what their power is.

And it has no reason to be as unified in this undeath-and-cursing side-gig that gets stapled onto the subclass when the designers ran out of ideas that fill in the band-aid on the shortcomings that the blade pact boon was determined to have.




I sense a new business opportunity. Maybe team up with a Illusionist to ship out major images and programmed illusions of your training routine, until the inevitable fallout as their friendship-turned-business gets soured by wealth.

Hah! Could be amusing.

[Sception]

And it has no reason to be as unified in this undeath-and-cursing side-gig that gets stapled onto the subclass when the designers ran out of ideas that fill in the band-aid on the shortcomings that the blade pact boon was determined to have.

The cursing business is the core of the class's identity, at least IMO. The intelligent weapon is the stapled on bit in order to justify stapling a blade boon patch onto what is, if you remove both the weapons part of the fluff and the hex warrior patch to blade boon, a fully functional warlock patron with features entirely revolving around cursing.

[Zalabim]

@ArtIzon, My arguments are already in the thread. If you cared to read it, you might also already understand why these threads keep repeating. I might gather them up and repeat them if I find time. For now, consider why you thought your bare assertions could stand with no supporting argument in the first place.

[Tanarii]

Once you find a magic weapon, pact blade is also obsoleted, and it didn't come with guidance & some other cantrip of choice.

It is not obsolete. It gives you proficiency, enabling you to wield the found magic weapon with your proficiency bonus.

That's one of THE major benefits of Pact of the Blade Boon that is often overlooked.

"But Shillelagh ..." just isn't a solid counter argument to Pact of the Blade Boon because of it.

[Segev]

The cursing business is the core of the class's identity, at least IMO. The intelligent weapon is the stapled on bit in order to justify stapling a blade boon patch onto what is, if you remove both the weapons part of the fluff and the hex warrior patch to blade boon, a fully functional warlock patron with features entirely revolving around cursing.

That may be what you like about it, but I’m positive it was the part they fumbled in the dark to find so they could flesh out a pact blade band aid.

If they’d build a curses patron and flavored it as such and focused on that, I probably wouldn’t have an issue with it. But that wasn’t their goal. Their goal was a blade pact fix, and they didn’t have enough material there to fill out all the pieces of a patron, so they scrambled to fill it in else wise.

At least, that’s how it reads to me.

[Yakk]

Hex Mastery (Additional level 1 warlock feature)

Starting at 1st level, once per day a Warlock may cast Hex without using a spell slot or using concentration as a minor action. While it is on the initial target, the Warlock gains a bonus to damage rolls on the creature equal to their proficiency bonus.

Hexblade's Curse

Starting at 1st level, Hexblades gain the ability to place a baleful curse on someone. As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. The target is cursed for 1 minute. The curse ends early if the target dies, you die, or you are incapacitated. Until the curse ends, you gain the following benefits:

• You gain a bonus to damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus.

• Any attack roll you make against the cursed target is a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20 on the d20.

• If the cursed target dies, you regain hit points equal to your warlock level + your Charisma modifier (minimum of 1 hit point).

You can’t use this feature again until you finish a short or long rest.

Hex Warrior

At 1st level, Hexblades acquire the training necessary to effectively arm yourself for battle. You gain proficiency with medium armor, shields, and martial weapons.

The influence of your patron also allows you to mystically channel your will through a particular weapon. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon, you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls. If you do so, you also gain a bonus to damage rolls equal to 1/2 of your charisma bonus (rounded down). This benefit lasts until you finish a long rest. If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type.

Pact of the Blade

When you make an attack with your pact weapon, you can use you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls. If you do so, you also gain a bonus to damage rolls equal to 1/2 of your charisma bonus (rounded down).

While holding your Pact Weapon you can summon a ward granted by your patron as a bonus action. This grants a +1 bonus to AC; if you have a hand free and are not wielding a shield, this bonus increases by 1/2 of your Proficiency Bonus.

...

Still a bit clunky.

[ArtIzon]

@ArtIzon, My arguments are already in the thread. If you cared to read it, you might also already understand why these threads keep repeating. I might gather them up and repeat them if I find time. For now, consider why you thought your bare assertions could stand with no supporting argument in the first place.

Because the supporting arguments for my perspectives have been repeated so often in so many places all over the internet that they're rhetoric at this point? And also I supported them in a later post anyway just in case? Have you never heard someone bring up the balance issues with Hexblade before? Have you never seen these proposed fixes? And are their effects not self-evident to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the game's systems? :smallconfused: Generally one isn't expected to provide references for something that could be considered common knowledge.

But sure. I'll read the thread.

Here are my responses to several of your points that I took issue with that pertain to what I said previously.

Red: Wrong or I take heavy issue with
Blue: Irrelevant but I felt the need to mention anyway
Green: Factually correct



I'm completely certain that pact of the blade does not need Cha to melee to function.


This is technically true. A Wizard technically doesn't need INT to function. You could play an 8 INT Wizard and do reasonably okay. But most likely that Wizard would be better with 20 INT, except in a very small set of scenarios, in which case they are equal. There is no situation in which the 8 INT Wizard is better.

In the same way, not having CHA for weapon attacks is strictly worse than having it, whether or not it prevents Blade Pact from being "functional." Fighters do not need weapons to be functional either, strictly speaking, but it is very suboptimal to play a fighter this way. Which strikes me as odd because you spent the better part of 2 posts explaining how Blade Pact is worse than the other two pacts in most respects and/or doesn't help it keep up with Agonizing Blast (particularly at higher levels). Sure, you could add more to fix the problem, but I'm not sure why you can't throw in CHA for weapon attacks as well, and you don't at any point clarify why you're opposed to it beyond why you think it's not needed, which I address below.



The only thing [CHA to weapon attacks] really helps with right now is the damage bonus from Lifedrinker,

And, like, hitting stuff. In general. And needing 18 in two stats by level 4 to keep up with the difficulty curve. Source: https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/fundamental_math.html



I do think pact of the blade lags behind in overall benefits (as the pact boon itself, even before any of them take invocations)...




..which sits right at the start of the problem area for pact of the blade already, both in level and in being the first necessary-invocation-too-many to keep up with agonizing blast.


So you've established Agonizing Blast is a standard for damage other damage-centric Warlock options have to live up to, which is true. You've also said Blade Pact the worst pact, also true. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by the set of things you're saying it lags behind.

It may not have been intended that Agonizing Blast is the standard for damage on Warlocks, but ultimately it's become the go-to option because of its ease of access and power. And I think we agree that Blade Pact ought to be competitive with it. So how can you justify saying Blade Pact doesn't suck with how unfavorably it compares to the utility granted by other options, or compared to other melee/caster hybrid options available to other classes? Again, you spent 1-2 entire posts addressing problems with it.



I have seen no argument to support it.


What are you even talking about? Blade Warlocks need all the help they can get. Are you not saying so in your own posts?!



Tome is not the same or better [compared to Blade Warlock]. It is the same defensively and worse offensively.


...No, Blade and Tome are exactly the same offensively. If you are a Warlock with Agonizing Blast, your melee option will lag behind it no matter what you put into it. So I don't know how you're under the impression Tome has strictly worse offense when Tome and Blade can both make the same use of Agonizing Blast. Having extra options doesn't mean anything when your best option applies in every circumstance and has no resource cost. I can carry around a Rapier on my Sharpshooter Archer character, but it's always going to be worse than my 1d8+15 arrows, and that's before getting into all the extra stuff you can slap on Eldritch Blast to make it more useful. Not to mention that for comparison's sake, the arrows have a resource cost, albeit a very minor one.


With Xanathar's Improved Pact Weapon, Finesse weapons are just above blasters and get higher AC from dexterity too. Dexterity bladelocks just work, until level 11 when cantrips get their second improvement then even if they had the full value of Lifedrinker they'd still be behind. If cha to melee makes heavy weapons work, then heavy weapons already work up to level 11, because a Cha warlock with a heavy weapon has no inherent better defenses than a Str warlock with a heavy weapon.


As I already stated, CHA to melee helps heavy weapons because they would only need max 15 str (for heavy armor) rather than 18-20 str. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem convinced that keeping ability scores on par doesn't matter. Which is silly. Offense is important too.



what makes warlocks specially deserve to freely alternate between weapon attacks and offensive spells, melee attacks and ranged attacks, with no tradeoffs?

Actually, that's a really good point. But that sounds like an argument against the CHA SADness of Hexblade to me. Which contributes to what I said about it being too powerful as a 1-level dip etc. etc.



Here's another crazy thought. Remembering the improved pact weapon line in the UA, Thirsting Blade, level 5, two attacks. Blistering Blade, level 11, three attacks. Breathless Blade, level 17, four attacks. No need for lifedrinker, just trade up the invocations as you level.

If you want more temp HP / absorption, why not tie that to Thirsting Blade?



Changes to low level blade lock play are just to be nice. It's the level 11+ and 17+ problems that really hamper it. Up to level 10, it already basically works.


So....isn't that kind of a general problem with 5e, that higher levels are poorly balanced? You're not wrong that it has problems later on. But I hardly think that's unique to the Warlock and maybe is an issue with how higher levels are designed as a whole.

SUMMARY
It sounds like we agree that Blade Pact has some issues, which leads me to believe that you claiming my claim about fixing Blade Pact is less about whether or not you think it sucks and more about whether or not my proposed change fixes it. Which I think we would agree that it doesn't.

But to be fair, I said it made it "suck less," -- which it would, because being SAD is objectively always useful because you can allocate your stats more efficiently. That said I think Blade Pact still needs additional fixes/tweaks, and it may be worth noting that my statements were specifically targeted at Hexblade, not Blade Pact. I also do not have any additional ideas for how Blade Pact can be improved as a Pact Boon option aside from the THP thing I mentioned above, though admittedly that cuts into Fiend's 1st-level ability. I have not seen a Warlock at or above 11th level before, melee or otherwise -- nor have I spent very much time looking at high-level play because campaigns reach it so infrequently -- so I admit I have little to contribute regarding that subtopic.


But ultimately:


My arguments are already in the thread.


This is interesting, considering you don't address what I said about Hexblade being a balance oversight or how my proposed alteration could impact build variety (for better or worse) in any of your posts while apparently feeling justified in claiming that my statements to those ends are untrue. So...your arguments with regard to literally one of the four things I said that you took issue with, that my fix to Blade Pact would fix it, which isn't even what I said, are already in the thread. I'm going to assume you aren't trying to be intellectually dishonest but this is still very disappointing, and quite frankly frustrating.

You do have a good idea with the Invocation changes, though.

Lastly, I maintain that it doesn't matter what changes are desired (though I suppose you're welcome to opinions on the matter). It matters what changes contribute the most to game balance. If there are two copies of what is otherwise the same game but one is better balanced, that one will have more replayability -- and more importantly, it will be more mechanically cohesive as a whole. But I get the impression that that's not a line of inquiry you're interested in following because you didn't respond to any of my points on that either. Which is fine. But in that case I'm not sure I have anything to gain by continuing this discussion.

I apologize if I have said anything that sounds uncivil, but I am very frustrated that you outright ignored several of my points (which you hadn't previously addressed like you claim).

[jmartkdr]

Well you can bind an existing magic weapon using the blade pact, so that plays nice if you get the weapon at level 1. So for it's level 1 features you just have to make sure it doesn't count as magical or give you the ability to summon it at will, give it other benefits instead.

Note: Rules as Written, you cannot bind a sentient weapon as you Pact Blade. They're specifically called out as ineligible.

I can't imagine enforcing that if it ever came up in play, but the rules is no.

[Segev]

On the topic of making Pact of the Blade stand up, on its own, equal to the other two core Pacts, I'm thinking "The pact weapon is magical and has a bonus to hit and damage equal to half your proficiency bonus, round down. If you bond a magic weapon as your Pact Weapon, round up. This bonus does not stack with any existing bonus on a magic pact weapon, but if it's higher, you may use it. When you bond a magic weapon as your Pact Weapon, you are attuned without it counting against your maximum attunements, and that magic weapon becomes one of the forms in which you can summon your blade. Your pact weapon only has the magic weapon's properties when it's in that magic weapon's form. You may have any number of magic weapons bonded in this fashion."


The language and capitalization could use some cleanup, but I think that addresses most of the issue: free magic weapon, free atunement to magic weapons you find, and the ribbon ability to call them to hand whenever you want.

[KorvinStarmast]

For me personally:

- The name 'Hexblade' should have belonged to a fighter subclass (presumably as an equivalent to the EK featuring pact magic & curses)

- 'Sentient weapon' as a warlock patron is fine, but shouldn't be mixed with raven queen/soul manipulation and/or curses. We could have a Hag, Witch or other patron for those angles.

- The Blade Pact should be viable for warlocks who want to gish regardless of Patron

So for me the Hexblade as is should ideally be addressed on multiple fronts. But it is what it is, and the path of least resistance is just focusing on the third point. Agreed, though I somewhat disagree with your point 2.
I don't care for the sentient weapon as a patron. I think that sentient weapons have a very different niche to fulfill in the game. (Granted, I am a bit Elric Centric in my thoughts on sentient weapons)

[Petrocorus]

And that case was wrong. I have always been talking about from level 1 through level 10, and how it changes afterwards.

No, it wasn't. As i said:


At level 5,
EB + Agonizing Blast: (1d10 + Cha) x2 (SAD build)
Shillelagh + GFB/BB + Pact of the Tome: 1d8 +Cha + 1d8 + (potential 1d8 +Cha to a second target) (SAD build)
Pact of the Blade + Thirsting Blade + IPW: (1d8 +1 +Dex) x2 (MAD build) (EDIT TO ADD: this work for both rapier and longbow)

The Tomelock will have melee damage that are lower than the finesse Bladelock, but higher when the secondary damages trigger.
His range damage will be at least equal to both the range and melee damages of the Bladelock. And that assumes the Bladelock put all his ASI in Dex (so no XBE or SharpS until later, and no increase in Cha).
All this with one less Invocation use for damages. And still 3 cantrips to spare, and a better or even much better casting if BoAS is taken.
And i'm pretty sure this keep up from level 3 to 11, when the gap becomes greater.
I'm honestly not sure you can do anything to improve your melee finesse damages until Lifedrinker, beside of pumping up Dex, obviously.


It is not obsolete. It gives you proficiency, enabling you to wield the found magic weapon with your proficiency bonus.

That's one of THE major benefits of Pact of the Blade Boon that is often overlooked.

"But Shillelagh ..." just isn't a solid counter argument to Pact of the Blade Boon because of it.
I'll say what i already said:


Fist, you may find a magic club or staff. It's unlikely, but not that much more unlikely than a magic halberd / maul / rapier.
There are several staves with bonus to attack and damage and only the Staff of Power (among them) seems to be made of metal, according to the illustration.
In likelihood, you'll find a shortsword or a longsword, unless DM fiat is involved. So, Blade let you use this +1 shortsword with your dex, Tome let you use a +0 club with your cha. Which one is best? And you're not going to use this +1 longsword because with the need for Cha, Dex, and Con, you Str is not going to be good unless you rolled stats and were very lucky.

Second, I won't say a magic weapon make the Pact of the Blade completely obsolete, like Malisteen, but it does remove one of its main benefit. And also one of the benefit of IPW.
So Blade at this point provides you with the proficiency and a protection against getting your weapon stolen. The latter is nice, but really situational, and the former in itself certainly is not worth a Pact Boon.

The proficiency in itself is not worth a Boon, notably because it's not really relevant unless you use a heavy weapon, which requires you to make Strength your primary ability.
With a single-handed weapon, your damages will not be much better than Shillelagh +GFB. Often lower.
And making Strength you primary, in a point-buy system without heavy armor means sacrificing you AC, or sacrificing you casting.
Pact of the Blade does nothing relevant in its own. It becomes good only once you packed up IPW + Thirsting Blade + Lifedrinker and only if you solved the AC issue one way or another. As written, it's just a tax to access this invocation and force you to pay some AC tax.

[Zalabim]

Finally getting back to this.

Hexblade is supposed to be the "melee warlock"
People rightly and commonly complain that every pact boon should be viable with every patron.

You don't have to do anything else...
Blade Pact doesn't suck anymore
I don't believe this changes where and whether blade pact sucks, and you seem to agree that it still has some of the same problems after this suggested change. I initially took these statements together to mean you thought this solved all of blade pact's issues.

melee Warlocks of other patrons can be SAD now.
I've spent quite a lot of time arguing that they don't need to be. Switching the primary ability score from dexterity or strength to charisma primarily makes these "melee warlocks" better at spellcasting, but not better at melee.

We've promoted build variety
Where before there's a choice between strength and dexterity (and even tome) with different benefits to each, Hexblade came along and pressed everyone into the charisma box. If that pressure is moved to the pact boon, strength blade locks disappear and dexterity blade locks almost do. I previously talked about the effect of adding the full-on Hex Warrior benefits as giving all the benefits of dexterity and strength to the spellcaster build while doing nothing to help the melee build(s) that already works up to level 10. The result is fewer builds. Less variety within the warlock class.

fixed a glaring balance oversight
There's still a lot of people unconvinced there's anything wrong with the Hexblade's benefits, in part or in whole, and my own point about them is that they provide undesirable incentives, rather than being imbalanced. The character taking advantage of all the patron offers isn't overpowered in the game. They're just overwhelmingly popular to the point of excluding other options from the public consciousness. If there is a balance issue, and if it was overlooked instead of fully intended, it is minor, not glaring.

without adding additional features.
It's nitpicky, but you're suggesting giving an ability to every other patron's blade warlocks that they did not have before, unless you didn't consider that there might be blade warlocks outside of hexblade, in which case see number one.


Because the supporting arguments for my perspectives have been repeated so often in so many places all over the internet that they're rhetoric at this point? And also I supported them in a later post anyway just in case? Have you never heard someone bring up the balance issues with Hexblade before? Have you never seen these proposed fixes? And are their effects not self-evident to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the game's systems? :smallconfused: Generally one isn't expected to provide references for something that could be considered common knowledge.
Because they are so common knowledge, I made my initial posts in the thread with addressing them in mind. Lacking any disagreement, I felt they were getting solidly debunked for the thread. Coming in late to politely repeat the same ignorant rhetoric came across as saying I wasted a whole bunch of time.

This is technically true. A Wizard technically doesn't need INT to function. You could play an 8 INT Wizard and do reasonably okay. But most likely that Wizard would be better with 20 INT, except in a very small set of scenarios, in which case they are equal. There is no situation in which the 8 INT Wizard is better.

In the same way, not having CHA for weapon attacks is strictly worse than having it, whether or not it prevents Blade Pact from being "functional." Fighters do not need weapons to be functional either, strictly speaking, but it is very suboptimal to play a fighter this way. Which strikes me as odd because you spent the better part of 2 posts explaining how Blade Pact is worse than the other two pacts in most respects and/or doesn't help it keep up with Agonizing Blast (particularly at higher levels). Sure, you could add more to fix the problem, but I'm not sure why you can't throw in CHA for weapon attacks as well, and you don't at any point clarify why you're opposed to it beyond why you think it's not needed, which I address below.
Not needing charisma as a melee warlock is a lot more like not needing wisdom as a melee ranger, or not needing dexterity as a melee fighter, or not needing strength as an Arcane Archer. I'm opposed to Cha for weapon attacks because it reduces build diversity, because people think it's a solution when it's barely a help, and because the way it does help is not in a satisfying way. Only needing to raise charisma means the extra invocation cost of lifedrinker is less ineffective, and it's easier to afford to take polearm master or other combat feats that do help the performance of melee weapons compared to eldritch blast. I argue a feat like Polearm Master shouldn't be required to make up lost ground to cantrip scaling, because the warlock can start off built for and favoring melee(weapon) attacks straight from level 1, and it's eldritch blasters that are the first ones taking an invocation to make up to the damage that a weapon user gets for free. Or if keeping up with the damage can not be the goal, then getting other benefits instead that make either choice worthwhile, kind of like how monks grow into better defenses more than better attacks after level 11. (not that people are entirely satisfied with how monk turned out either.)

Or as I said in detail: First I want to re-align some thinking. Everyone knows the warlock is a Cha-primary caster, but it's not necessarily their most important attribute. That depends on what you want to be doing, and warlock has a lot of choice on that front. The warlock has a lot of spells and abilities that don't need charisma as much, or at all. Hex and Armor of Agathys, Misty Step and Mirror Image, Gaseous Form and Tongues, Dimension Door and Shadow of Moil, Far Step and Contact Other Plane, Soul Cage or True Seeing, Force Cage or Plane Shift, Demiplane or Power Word Stun, Foresight or True Polymorph. The entire GOO Patron. I'd call this the Ranger test. The ranger needs Wisdom for their spellcasting, skills, and class features, of course. That's why it's on their multiclassing requirements. Well, not exactly. If you want to be casting Hunter's Mark and Goodberry, Spike Growth and Pass Without Trace, Conjure Animals and Plant Growth, Conjure Woodland Beings and Freedom of Movement and Guardian of Nature, Swift Quiver and Commune With Nature, the ranger isn't using their spellcasting ability at all. It's not until level 20 that wisdom comes up in a class ability.

So, really, the reason the warlock needs high charisma is eldritch blast. To whatever degree my gish warlock doesn't need eldritch blast, my gish warlock doesn't need as high of charisma. High charisma is a choice, for it has benefit and improves use-limited options, but it's not vital to my core combat mechanic. I could play a ranger who prioritizes STR, DEX, and CON, then WIS.


Actually, that's a really good point. But that sounds like an argument against the CHA SADness of Hexblade to me. Which contributes to what I said about it being too powerful as a 1-level dip etc. etc.
That is an argument against CHA SADness in general. I know for some people it's the character-defining ability, but it does present a balance concern/game design challenge.

If you want more temp HP / absorption, why not tie that to Thirsting Blade?
It's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure it's the best idea. As I've said I'm not sure what, if any, changes should fall in the sub-level-11 range. There's still the option of the pact boon itself, which I've likened to "you get less than half of Weapon Master as a cantrip." I do not think giving the boon more features of being a cantrip (using your charisma) is going to make it feel special in the proper way. Not like "You get half of magic initiate wizard (find familiar) and it's improved," Or "You get more than half of magic initiate (cantrips) and they're yours."

SUMMARY
It sounds like we agree that Blade Pact has some issues, which leads me to believe that you claiming my claim about fixing Blade Pact is less about whether or not you think it sucks and more about whether or not my proposed change fixes it. Which I think we would agree that it doesn't.

But to be fair, I said it made it "suck less," -- which it would, because being SAD is objectively always useful because you can allocate your stats more efficiently. That said I think Blade Pact still needs additional fixes/tweaks, and it may be worth noting that my statements were specifically targeted at Hexblade, not Blade Pact. I also do not have any additional ideas for how Blade Pact can be improved as a Pact Boon option aside from the THP thing I mentioned above, though admittedly that cuts into Fiend's 1st-level ability. I have not seen a Warlock at or above 11th level before, melee or otherwise -- nor have I spent very much time looking at high-level play because campaigns reach it so infrequently -- so I admit I have little to contribute regarding that subtopic.
To be sure, you initially said it would make blade pact not suck anymore, then backpedaled to "suck less." So I have to say, I don't think it makes blade pact suck any less either.

This is interesting, considering you don't address what I said about Hexblade being a balance oversight or how my proposed alteration could impact build variety (for better or worse) in any of your posts while apparently feeling justified in claiming that my statements to those ends are untrue. So...your arguments with regard to literally one of the four things I said that you took issue with, that my fix to Blade Pact would fix it, which isn't even what I said, are already in the thread. I'm going to assume you aren't trying to be intellectually dishonest but this is still very disappointing, and quite frankly frustrating.
I feel like you might've glossed over the whole post this quote is from. You can click the box next to the name to be taken to the start of the post.

TL;DR "Just give them all Hex Warrior" makes all pact of the blade warlocks stronger, but it gives the most benefit to caster warlocks and less benefit to gish warlocks. It is a solution that makes more problems, and I'm really too tired to think more at this point.


You do have a good idea with the Invocation changes, though.
Thanks. I was really hoping someone would pick up that the names were inspired by the rules of three of survival though. (3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter in an extremely hot or cold environment, 3 days without water.) I thought about going out to Hungering Blade(3 weeks without food), but then all I'd have left is something based on the looser/inspired by survival (3 months without social contact). Lonesome Blade? Not the right kind of edgy.


Lastly, I maintain that it doesn't matter what changes are desired (though I suppose you're welcome to opinions on the matter). It matters what changes contribute the most to game balance. If there are two copies of what is otherwise the same game but one is better balanced, that one will have more replayability -- and more importantly, it will be more mechanically cohesive as a whole. But I get the impression that that's not a line of inquiry you're interested in following because you didn't respond to any of my points on that either. Which is fine. But in that case I'm not sure I have anything to gain by continuing this discussion.
Ah, there's a misunderstanding here too. It's not about what changes are desired. It's about what results are desired, and then making the changes necessary to encourage the desired results. Most people don't want there to be "the melee patron", "the book patron", and "the familiar patron." I personally don't want to backpedal away from the existing support for dexterity primary and the odd strength primary warlocks, or see them erased and merged into an omni-capable charisma primary caster/melee/archer/gish/tank/scout/scholar/takeyourpick warlock. I know other people desire the fantasy of being a scrawny hero using a big sword because magic. I try to make careful suggestions that leave room for a charisma to melee option for others, without letting it end up with the best of everything, or just worse than eldritch blasting after all.

No, it wasn't. As i said:

The Tomelock will have melee damage that are lower than the finesse Bladelock, but higher when the secondary damages trigger.
His range damage will be at least equal to both the range and melee damages of the Bladelock. And that assumes the Bladelock put all his ASI in Dex (so no XBE or SharpS until later, and no increase in Cha).
All this with one less Invocation use for damages. And still 3 cantrips to spare, and a better or even much better casting if BoAS is taken.
And i'm pretty sure this keep up from level 3 to 11, when the gap becomes greater.
I'm honestly not sure you can do anything to improve your melee finesse damages until Lifedrinker, beside of pumping up Dex, obviously.

Close enough to the same damage with higher accuracy that makes the finesse blade lock deal more damage in melee or in range, unless there is a second target for greenflame blade, and you value secondary damage as completely equal to primary damage, and you aren't using Hex, in which case the finesse bladelock is still more accurate, to point of generally still dealing more damage with greenflame blade up to level 8, when both characters reach 20 in their primary attribute.
As for the invocation cost, it's free at level 1 and 2, equal to agonizing blast at level 3 and 4, and equal to adding BoAS from level 5 to 10.
The tome warlock needs shillelagh, eldritch blast, and greenflame blade on their end to the finesse warlock needing none of them, so they have 0 extra cantrips, though the cantrips they do have can still be from a broader selection than just the warlock class list.

The finesse warlock isn't just throwing stats away raising Dexterity. They also benefit from a higher stealth, AC, and initiative.

There's no denying the utility of the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation, but as far as combat, there is no gap until level 11.

Lifedrinker at level 12 doesn't entirely close that gap even if the finesse warlock somehow had 20 in both dexterity and charisma, not that the finesse warlock should have to spend another invocation when the tome one doesn't.

Identifying and fixing that problem is my whole goal. Getting a found magic weapon changes some of the invocation cost, but also locks out the melee/ranged flexibility of the finesse build. Unless it's a Rapier-Bow +1. That lifedrinker is better with charisma for weapons doesn't matter unless lifedrinker is already exactly what it needs to be, which clearly something at level 12 isn't.

[Sindeloke]

That may be what you like about it, but I’m positive it was the part they fumbled in the dark to find so they could flesh out a pact blade band aid.

If they’d build a curses patron and flavored it as such and focused on that, I probably wouldn’t have an issue with it. But that wasn’t their goal. Their goal was a blade pact fix, and they didn’t have enough material there to fill out all the pieces of a patron, so they scrambled to fill it in else wise.

At least, that’s how it reads to me.

Eh. Conceptually it's literally just the 3e hexblade ported forward: a guy with some Charisma magic, a main focus on stabbing, and a curse theme.

Which is weird because this edition's warlock draws heavily on the original hexblade already. You get a curse (literally the hex spell) that you can put on your enemies to make them weaker and your attacks more ouchy. You can get a familiar, or hit people with a sword, or use magic that has a spooky witchy theme. It's way more 3e hexblade than it is either 3e or 4e warlock, in fact. The only real thematic difference is that the 5e warlock is caster first and kind of a dark compliment to the cleric, and the 3e hexblade was a full BAB class put forward in the Complete Warrior as a dark compliment to the paladin. So while it kind of makes sense that they'd think "we gotta make a blade pact patch, why don't we use the combat-focused guy who is a thematic match to our caster class," it's also incredibly weird and redundant because the warlock is... already the hexblade anyway.

That might be part of why the whole thing is so shaky, come to think of it.

Anyway I definitely agree with the sentiment that the hexblade should have been a fighter subclass with pact magic, and blade pact should have been fixed by fixing blade pact. I know they're committed to this concept of never errata'ing anything so they don't confuse people whose dead trees are from too early in the edition, but at the very least they could have just made an invocation that was "thirsting blade, but better" or something instead of making a weird hash of a subclass.

[Petrocorus]

Close enough to the same damage with higher accuracy that makes the finesse blade lock deal more damage in melee or in range,

By higher accuracy you mean having two attack rolls? Because they have the same bonus to hit.
The finesse build with two attacks have less chance of not doing damage, but also less chance to do all its damages.
I grant you that on average, against level-appropriate foes, with chance to hit accounted for, the finesselock will do more damage on a single round, if there is no secondary target or if the AC of the foe is very high.


unless there is a second target for greenflame blade,
As i said myself.


and you value secondary damage as completely equal to primary damage, and you aren't using Hex, in which case the finesse bladelock is still more accurate, to point of generally still dealing more damage with greenflame blade up to level 8, when both characters reach 20 in their primary attribute.

Points taken for Hex in melee.
I didn't count on it because Hex, or rather Concentration is not always available and may not last long with a low AC.



As for the invocation cost, it's free at level 1 and 2, equal to agonizing blast at level 3 and 4, and equal to adding BoAS from level 5 to 10.
Level 1 and 2? You're neither a Bladelock nor a Tomelock at this point, and your soon-to-be Bladelock is going into melee with a dagger.
Same Invocation cost at level 3 and 4 indeed.
BoAS is not a cost. You don't need to take it to be better at combat. You do need Thirsting Blade to stay relevant in melee damages.
The Tomelock has a spare Invocation that he uses on BoAS which open a whole world of new utilities.



The tome warlock needs shillelagh, eldritch blast, and greenflame blade on their end to the finesse warlock needing none of them, so they have 0 extra cantrips, though the cantrips they do have can still be from a broader selection than just the warlock class list.
Almost all Warlock take EB, even most of Bladelock, just to have a range option, this is not a cost. And many Tomelock will have Shillelagh, just to have a melee option and because this also give them access to Guidance.
So the Tome lock has to spend 2 of his 6 cantrips on melee (one quite obvious) and still has more than the Bladelock.



The finesse warlock isn't just throwing stats away raising Dexterity. They also benefit from a higher stealth, AC, and initiative.
True for Stealth and Initiative.
True for AC but only until the finesselock has maxed out Dex and now has to take XBE/SS or start bumping Cha, while the Tomelock can spare a feat for Moderately Armored.
And that does come at the cost of his casting.



There's no denying the utility of the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation, but as far as combat, there is no gap until level 11.
So, no gap between the finesselock that spend a significant part of his build resources (his Boon, 2 Invocations at least, 2 ASI) on being good in melee and the Tomelock who spend two of his seven cantrips to do the same thing?

[Zalabim]

By higher accuracy you mean having two attack rolls? Because they have the same bonus to hit.
By higher accuracy I mean higher bonus to hit because they are guaranteed at least a +1 weapon.

This space intentionally left blank
This space intentionally left blank
This space intentionally left blank


Points taken for Hex in melee.
I didn't count on it because Hex, or rather Concentration is not always available and may not last long with a low AC.
I don't count on it either but figure I should get ahead on mentioning because it always seems to come up eventually. I guess there's low AC and then there's whatever you'd call the tomelock's AC.

Level 1 and 2? You're neither a Bladelock nor a Tomelock at this point, and your soon-to-be Bladelock is going into melee with a dagger.
Two daggers, and defensive magic that's also offensive if I'm in melee, tyvm. Or a light crossbow if that's what the party and situation needs instead.

Same Invocation cost at level 3 and 4 indeed.
BoAS is not a cost. You don't need to take it to be better at combat. You do need Thirsting Blade to stay relevant in melee damages.
The Tomelock has a spare Invocation that he uses on BoAS which open a whole world of new utilities.
You don't need BoAS for combat, but you are probably going to take it anyway.

Almost all Warlock take EB, even most of Bladelock, just to have a range option, this is not a cost. And many Tomelock will have Shillelagh, just to have a melee option and because this also give them access to Guidance.
So the Tome lock has to spend 2 of his 6 cantrips on melee (one quite obvious) and still has more than the Bladelock.
The bladelock has a ranged option. It's called a longbow. 3 cantrips.

True for Stealth and Initiative.
True for AC but only until the finesselock has maxed out Dex and now has to take XBE/SS or start bumping Cha, while the Tomelock can spare a feat for Moderately Armored.
And that does come at the cost of his casting.
True up to level 12 is good enough for a start, and the cost to casting depends on what it is you're casting.

So, no gap between the finesselock that spend a significant part of his build resources (his Boon, 2 Invocations at least, 2 ASI) on being good in melee and the Tomelock who spend two of his seven cantrips to do the same thing?
As in the finesselock that spent his boon, 2 invocations, and 2 ASI gets to be a little better in melee and in range compared to the tomelock who spent 3 cantrips, 1 invocation, 2 ASI, and part of his boon for most of the game that people play. And that's just how it is right now.

The most important lesson I want tome-fans to learn is that throwing Shillelagh on a typical spellcaster does not make you relevant in melee combat.

[Tanarii]

I'll say what i already said:

The proficiency in itself is not worth a Boon, notably because it's not really relevant unless you use a heavy weapon, which requires you to make Strength your primary ability.It absolutely is worth a boon to open up the ability to be proficient in all found magic weapons. Unless your DM doesn't use magic weapons.

And all weapons can use Str. Being MAD, and the ramifications on a light armor wearing class, is indeed the key issue for the Pact of the Blade Boon. It's what it all boils down to.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ranger
Sorcerer
Mystic
Hexblade
Surprise
Stealth

♫ It's the circle
The circle of threads ♫ heh, that got me chuckling.
I think Art is on to something. But I don't have anything new to add beyond the points already made.
The idea that "Blade Pact needs to be good with every patron" is a band wagon I can jump on to.

[Segev]

It absolutely is worth a boon to open up the ability to be proficient in all found magic weapons. Unless your DM doesn't use magic weapons.

And all weapons can use Str. Being MAD, and the ramifications on a light armor wearing class, is indeed the key issue for the Pact of the Blade Boon. It's what it all boils down to.

First off, right now, it's the ability to have any melee weapon you happen to want (and have it count as magical), or ONE magic weapon at the expense of this versatility. (Interestingly, you can make a magic ranged weapon your pact weapon, even though you can't have your pact weapon take the form of a ranged weapon.) This means that you are only proficient with one magical weapon at a time.

Secondly, is this...actually as good as 3 extra cantrips from any class? One cantrip will give you the same access to a magic weapon, plus SADness for wielding it. It does limit you to 1d8 damage, though, while glaive or greatsword is available if you want bigger damage dice with the pact weapon. But then you have to have Str, and are thus MAD. Unfortunately, the trade-off seems close enough to me that the Pact of the Blade seems, by itself, to be 1/3 to 1/2 as good as Pact of the Tome, which is also some bit weaker (but not totally weaker) than Pact of the Chain. (All without considering Invocations.)


This is complicated by considering Invocations, however. Just how much is a Pact Boon allowed to lean on Invocations supporting it to justify it?

To provide a reductio ad absurdum point of analysis, let's pretend there's a Pact of the Sparkle:
Pact of the Sparkle
You gain an aura of visible sparkles that hang around you. These sparkles look really cool, and emphasize how special you are, and that your Patron thinks you're pretty. Or handsome. Or both. You can dismiss your sparkles as a free action on your turn, or summon up to your Charisma in sparkles that appear around you as a reaction. As a bonus action, you may summon one additional sparkle at a time when you already have them all up. These sparkles never obscure vision nor provide any lighting.

There; I think that's sufficiently do-nothing. Utterly worthless as a pick. Now, to complete this absurd example, new invocation:

Friendship is Magic!
Prerequisite: Pact of the Sparkle
When you hear an ally express a desire in the form of a wish, you can bring hope to their lives and prove that they ain't never had a friend like you. As a reaction, when anybody makes a statement that starts with "I wish..." in your hearing, you may cast wish without components or a spell slot in order to make it come true.

Note the lack of any level-gating on this.

Obviously, this is horribly overpowered. The Pact of the Sparkle becomes instantly something any Warlock is almost a fool not to pick up, and to swap out for the associated Invocation right away.

What this illustrates is that you DO need to consider Invocations gated behind Pacts as part of the power of a Pact. The question is thus complicated: how much can a Pact lean on Invocations and still be a worthy Pact to take?

I've commented before that Pact of the Tome, for all that 3 cantrips from any class is quite nice, almost feels like it just has an Invocation tax for its real power: Book of Secrets almost seems mandatory, and like every Tomelock is going to pick it up for the super-ritual-casting.

Hexblade and Pact of the Blade feel similar, honestly, and that's part of the problem: I think it's probably okay for a Pact to have "invocation taxes" to make it "really" at its baseline expected power level, if its baseline expected power level is that much beyond what other Pacts have as their baseline expectation. Pact of the Chain is, I think, a good "gold standard" for what a raw, un-supported Pact should be. Witness how it's quite good despite having no real Invocation support. Its Invocations tend to do little to really make it any better, and often are questionable as to why they're gated behind it at all. Voice of the Chain Master seems to be the only one that's really tied to it in any serious way. And that one is ... nice, but hardly as powerful as Thirsting Blade or Book of Secrets. But it can be weaker, because the Pact itself is stronger, and thus you haven't "paid" for the stronger invocation access with the weaker Pact Boon.

On the other hand, you don't want to go too far with this. Thirsting Blade is practically as in demand for the Pact of the Blade as Book of Secrets is for Pact of the Tome, and giving the martial classes' big mid-level perk to a full caster is definitely something potent, but is making Pact of the Blade so much weaker than the others - at most 1/2 as good as the middle-child Pact - really a good idea?

I may be guilty of going too far the other way, too. This pact (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24428485&postcount=14) that I made for a subclass contest thread has a ton of invocation support, and is already pretty strong, so might be overdoing it.

The point being: just how weak can a Pact really be before it leans too much on Invocations? And, in particular, does Pact of the Blade with full Invocation support, match up to Pact of the Tome and Pact of the Chain with full Invocation support?

[Petrocorus]

By higher accuracy I mean higher bonus to hit because they are guaranteed at least a +1 weapon.

OK for this fair point.



This space intentionally left blank
This space intentionally left blank
This space intentionally left blank

*insert Ryan Reynold gif* But why?



I don't count on it either but figure I should get ahead on mentioning because it always seems to come up eventually. I guess there's low AC and then there's whatever you'd call the tomelock's AC.

About 14 with studded leather and 14 dex. I'd call this low.



Two daggers, and defensive magic that's also offensive if I'm in melee, tyvm.
Are you speaking of Hex?



You don't need BoAS for combat, but you are probably going to take it anyway.
Yes, but this is still not a cost for combat.



The bladelock has a ranged option. It's called a longbow. 3 cantrips.
Granted. But even if you count EB as a cost, that's still as good as the tomelock.



True up to level 12 is good enough for a start, and the cost to casting depends on what it is you're casting.

It's possible for a warlock to cast spells that don't care for his casting stat, but then you're limiting your choice of spells. So, you're hindering you casting one way or another.



As in the finesselock that spent his boon, 2 invocations, and 2 ASI gets to be a little better in melee and in range compared to the tomelock who spent 3 cantrips, 1 invocation, 2 ASI, and part of his boon for most of the game that people play. And that's just how it is right now.
No.
The tomelock spent 2 cantrips to be good in melee. One from his boon. This is the cost for being good in melee.
He spent 1 cantrip and 1 invocation to be good at range, but this the basic Warlock build. Before IPW, the Bladelock who wanted a relevant range option needed the same.
The ASI, the boon and the other invocations have been spent to be better at everything he does. They are not a cost to be good in melee.

So even if you count EB+AB as a cost, that's still 3 cantrips + 1 invocation against 1 boon + at least 2 invocations + 2 ASI.


The most important lesson I want tome-fans to learn is that throwing Shillelagh on a typical spellcaster does not make you relevant in melee combat.
And a Bladelock with finesse weapon is not much more relevant in melee neither. That's my point.


It absolutely is worth a boon to open up the ability to be proficient in all found magic weapons. Unless your DM doesn't use magic weapons.

And all weapons can use Str. Being MAD, and the ramifications on a light armor wearing class, is indeed the key issue for the Pact of the Blade Boon. It's what it all boils down to.
The bolded part is the point i was trying to make.
On a Dex build, your proficiency let you use shortswords, scimitar and rapier. The latter are not that common without DM fiat, and the former is not so much better than a dagger. You're not going to use most of the magic weapons you found because they are not finesse weapons.
That's why i consider them not so relevant.
The proficiency given by Blade is relevant if you can use a heavy weapon, which requires you not to have to pump up Dex. Or to roll high stats.

[Segev]

This is a bit messy as a concept, but I'll toss it out there as a rough idea: what if the Pact of the Blade allowed you to add or remove one tag from the Pact Weapon? So you could remove "two-handed" from a greatsword, or add "finess" to it, or "light" to a longsword. Or a halfling warlock could remove "heavy" from his glaive.

[Zalabim]

This is a bit messy as a concept, but I'll toss it out there as a rough idea: what if the Pact of the Blade allowed you to add or remove one tag from the Pact Weapon? So you could remove "two-handed" from a greatsword, or add "finess" to it, or "light" to a longsword. Or a halfling warlock could remove "heavy" from his glaive.

Custom, exotic weapon would be an interesting bonus for the boon. My first caution about that would be that the blade boon already has the longest description, so how concisely and clearly can this effect be described? "You may add or remove one of the following features from the weapon: heavy, finesse, thrown (20'/60'), loading, versatile (d10), reach, or light. You may change which feature is added or removed each time you create your pact weapon." That doesn't seem too bad, though loading might be noted as out of place when the default weapon has to be melee, to which I can only say The Hand Crossbow is a Light weapon. It's future proofing.

[Segev]

Custom, exotic weapon would be an interesting bonus for the boon. My first caution about that would be that the blade boon already has the longest description, so how concisely and clearly can this effect be described? "You may add or remove one of the following features from the weapon: heavy, finesse, thrown (20'/60'), loading, versatile (d10), reach, or light. You may change which feature is added or removed each time you create your pact weapon." That doesn't seem too bad, though loading might be noted as out of place when the default weapon has to be melee, to which I can only say The Hand Crossbow is a Light weapon. It's future proofing.

"You may add or remove one Weapon Property (see the Weapon Properties section of the PHB) from your Pact Weapon when you create it. You may only have one such property added or removed at a time, but may make a new choice each time you create it."

[Petrocorus]

I find this interesting. Probably better for balance than giving Cha to attacks.
I'm not sure however if we should allow to remove the "ammunition" property, though, at least not without looking into the game effect thoroughly.

[Tanarii]

First off, right now, it's the ability to have any melee weapon you happen to want (and have it count as magical), or ONE magic weapon at the expense of this versatility. (Interestingly, you can make a magic ranged weapon your pact weapon, even though you can't have your pact weapon take the form of a ranged weapon.) This means that you are only proficient with one magical weapon at a time.Usually one weapon is what you care about. But yes, that's a point. If you find three magic weapons you get proficiency in only one.


Secondly, is this...actually as good as 3 extra cantrips from any class?Yes.


One cantrip will give you the same access to a magic weapon, plus SADness for wielding it.Which cantrip makes you proficient with a found magic weapon? It's not shillelagh. All that does is give your weapon the ability to hit as if a magic weapon. It doesn't make you proficient with a flame tongue or dwarven thrower or black razor.

It does also make your character SAD, and that's the crux of the debate. But trying to claim Shillelagh is just as good as Pact of the Blade because it emulates a magical weapon entirely misses the point.

[Kane0]

I hear the Shillelagh thing and i think ‘you can have any magic weapon you want, as long as it’s a stick’

[Segev]

I hear the Shillelagh thing and i think ‘you can have any magic weapon you want, as long as it’s a stick’

Granted. I still have trouble seeing "you can have any weapon you want and be proficient with it" as holding up compared to "you get shillelagh and two other cantrips, too."

[Petrocorus]

Granted. I still have trouble seeing "you can have any weapon you want and be proficient with it" as holding up compared to "you get shillelagh and two other cantrips, too."
One probably being Guidance, which is one of the best 3 cantrips in the game.

For me it depends on two things:
- Can you afford to go for heavy weapons.
- What is the availability of magic weapons.

The first one is hardly possible without Hex Warrior, or a dip in Paladin/Fighter, both giving you the proficiencies.
The latter is table and campaign dependant. And you may never find a magic weapon you can actually use efficiently and is more powerful than a +1 shortsword.

[Kane0]

Granted. I still have trouble seeing "you can have any weapon you want and be proficient with it" as holding up compared to "you get shillelagh and two other cantrips, too."


If I may make an assumption: If you take Shillelagh as part of Tome pact you are doing so to have melee as a secondary to tertiary option. An emergency scenario, if you will.
Blade Pact however is picked by those that *intend* on using weapons relatively often, whether by choice or not.

On top of game-specific magic weapon access and the limited choice of weapons, Shillelagh will also run into a problem sooner or later with its duration and bonus action casting time getting in the way of something else you may want to do.

You also don't get the neat inventive uses such as tossing the barbarian a free greataxe in the middle of a royal court, or making a temporary knife that cannot be traced for the rogue to use for an assassination.

Blade pact might not be straight up as good as three cantrips of your choice, but it is better than Shillelagh.

[Segev]

If I may make an assumption: If you take Shillelagh as part of Tome pact you are doing so to have melee as a secondary to tertiary option. An emergency scenario, if you will.
Blade Pact however is picked by those that *intend* on using weapons relatively often, whether by choice or not.

On top of game-specific magic weapon access and the limited choice of weapons, Shillelagh will also run into a problem sooner or later with its duration and bonus action casting time getting in the way of something else you may want to do.

You also don't get the neat inventive uses such as tossing the barbarian a free greataxe in the middle of a royal court, or making a temporary knife that cannot be traced for the rogue to use for an assassination.

Blade pact might not be straight up as good as three cantrips of your choice, but it is better than Shillelagh.

You'll note that I said "better than shillelagh and 2 other cantrips," or at least mentioned that as a specific point of comparison. But I agree, Pact of the Blade has some unique characteristics. It's not 100% overshadowed by a single cantrip in another Pact.

None of this really is convincing me that it actually stands up on its own, without Invocation support. Which is the root of the question. I know Hexblade is a Patron that's in question, here, but part of the examination is why and whether Hexblade is needed at all, and THEN whether it does too much or solves the RIGHT problems.

I think we can agree that a Hexblade Bladepact Warlock is the optimal choice for the Patron + Pact, in that if you pick one, you should optimally pick the other. I think we can also agree that there was - maybe is - a perception (which is seeming to be born out as correct) that Pact of the Blade wasn't standing up on its own, and needed something to patch it. Hence the Hexblade Patron, built specifically to back up Pact of the Blade.

I have the "fix" I posted links to several times, wherein my design goal was to eliminate the Patron while providing what it gave the Blade Pact in the form of Invocations and spells. I think, at this point, I've succeeded, but I also still am dissatisfied.

My own "hexblade" cantrip is still too powerful. And I am waffling on whether Pact of the Blade Warlocks need (or "deserve") to be SAD, or should get support for the Pact of the Blade that instead encourages a choice between Str and Dex and helps one or the other as a primary (or possibly secondary to Cha).

This is also why I've been asking questions about how much it's kosher for a Pact Boon to expect you to invest in Invocation support for it to make it "really" do what it's "meant to do," versus how much it absolutely must be able to stand on its own with no Invocation investment. The answer to this will identify whether the Pact of the Blade simply MUST be buffed, itself, or if it can be patched with a better distribution of Warlock spells and Invocations to support it.

So far, I'm seeing no real dispute with my initial impressions as expressed: that Chain is good on its own and needs no Invocation support (and lacks many serious options to even try); that Tome is good enough on its own to be a worthy pick, but seems like its "true form" is unlocked with the Invocation tax on Book of Secrets; and that Pact of the Blade...depends too much on Invocations to support it and doesn't do enough on its own.

Or, rather, I didn't posit that as definite earlier, but the more we discuss it, the more I'm convinced of it. The things you can do with Pact of the Blade are practically ribbons where they're not overshadowed by a third of Tome. That's not entirely true; the ability to "get" better weapons IS significant. But the SADness vs. MADness, when little else supports the MADness, is painful.


So, to really take a look at this, let's go with a Dex/Cha build. Either Dex primary and Cha secondary, or Cha primary and Dex secondary, but either way, MAD. We'll use canon Pact of the Blade, and any Patron other than Hexblade. With this, you've got light armor and all the Dex to AC you can afford, and you're using finesse weapons (rapier seems likely). You may or may not be rocking canon Armor of Shadows for 13+Dex mod AC, which is going to be the best AC you can get. Barring that, you'll have studded leather. If you're Cha primary, then your finesse blade is a fallback option. If you're Dex primary, then you like wading into melee and are trying to be a light fighter with probable investment in Thirsting Blade.

How does this compare to a Warlock who goes for a different Pact? If you're insisting on wading into combat with Tome, again, you're looking at SADness for your attacks, the same damage die, but you still want some Dex for that AC, which is likely a bit lower. You're probably more like the Dex-secondary version of the PAct of the Blade Warlock, playing more caster-/blaster-like.

And I think that's why I keep comparing it to shillelagh: Unless you go for a Strength build, which Warlock sans Hexblade doesn't support (as has been noted many times; I know I'm saying nothing new), your dex build choice isn't really an improvement over what shillelagh gives you. Yes, you can pick a magic weapon that might be something "better." Yes, you can throw the barbarian a greataxe if he doesn't have one that's magical. But I don't think this stacks up to comparable build choices. Now, if you do go Blade, you CAN get that extra attack off Thirsting Blade, which is something shillelagh can't match, and 1d8+dex mod is likely stronger than 1d10 per attack...but it's not stronger than 1d10+cha mod per attack. Which brings us back to: why, other than style and fantasy, is the warlock wading into melee?

If the Warlock is forced into it, that's one thing, but again, shillelagh is likely helping as much there as the blade pact weapon. If the Warlock invested invocations into a second attack, he's not planning this as a fallback.



And then there's the one other issue I kept running into when designing my "fix" that was just there to unmake the Hexblade Patron while keeping its functionality as a patch intact: you shouldn't have your class archetype (including PAct Boons) fundamentally alter your entire play-style, say from "full caster" to "front line gish." Neither of the other two Pacts do that; Tome makes you Sorcerer-lite with more Cantrips to throw around, while Chain gives you a touch of Wizard flavor but more importantly gives you interesting tricks and utility with a more powerful familiar. The fundamental play style of "caster" doesn't change.

So either Blade PAct needs to provide enough on its own that supports a caster playstyle without making it feel like a fallback option, or the Warlock needs some design alterations to make it self-support gishing from level 1. And even then, Blade Pact feels like it's a bit anemic, and leans far too heavily on Invocation support.

[Kane0]

So either Blade Pact needs to provide enough on its own that supports a caster playstyle without making it feel like a fallback option, or the Warlock needs some design alterations to make it self-support gishing from level 1. And even then, Blade Pact feels like it's a bit anemic, and leans far too heavily on Invocation support.

Ah, okay. I choose option 1, as I don't think it would be in the Warlock's best interests to be fully gish enabled at level 1.

Now, as for making the Pact more equal to the other two. Do you mean specifically in the realm of combat or utility? The former is easy, just start stapling desirable parts from elsewhere until it's good enough. The latter will need more creativity.