Hexblade dips are strong for a lot of classes,but how to you justify it at the table?

[Klorox]

How do your justify only taking one level in hexblade warlock?

“I am gonna make a pact, eh, on second thought...”

I’m just having trouble looking at it and I was hoping to get a little help from the experts around here about how you make it work.

[cutlery]

How do your justify only taking one level in hexblade warlock?

“I am gonna make a pact, eh, on second thought...”

I’m just having trouble looking at it and I was hoping to get a little help from the experts around here about how you make it work.

A legendary sentient weapon comes to you in a dream and makes promises. Some of those promises are too good to pass up. When next you wake, you can do things.


As far as fluff and backstory goes, making a deal with an extraplanar entity isn't that weird - at least not relative to waking up some morning and realizing you're a paladin, sorcerer, or wizard. Or monk, for that matter.

[Edea]

That's just fluff. Non-issue.

A Paladin 1/Warlock 17 and a Paladin 17/Warlock 1 are both fluffed as 'an oathbound warrior who's also made a pact with a powerful extraplanar entity'. People in the game world can't see your class level distribution.

[zinycor]

Warlock multiclassing is fairly easy to justify in game. The GM and player come up with some 2ay for the pc to contact their patron and that's it.

For the hexblade, the pc may hear the stories of a legendary weapon, seek info about it and them the weapon visits it in dreams where they make some agreement.

It doesn't require training or devotion. Just a patron and a pc willing to do business.

[rickayelm]

The hex blade pact is probably the easiest pact to justify. How many gods, celestials, demigod, or other powerful beings have sentient weapons.
The war god with his sentient sword is a fairly common story. Any paladin who worshipped said god could make a pact.

[Cyclops08]

I will typically do two levels of Hexblade to get Agonizing Blast and one other at will invocation. like Mask of Many Faces. I go half plate sorcerer who can always fallback on Eldritch Blast.

any good story teller can justify it at the table. I incorporate mine in my backstory. "I was out in the woods when I ran into a couple of Goblin scouts. Running for my life I stumbled upon an ancient blade, and made a pact to save my life. the blade melted into my arm."

[Falconcry]

Falconcry became an initiate into the order of Malo and fell in love with a fellow classmate. She turned his eye from his goddess and tired have him aid her in a hedonistic ritual that would grant the lovers great powers.

Falconcry was bound with silken ropes to a column deep in the forest as his lover's voice took on a deeper otherworldly chant.

Falconcry began to fear something was going horridly wrong as the woman snatched up a battle-axe and attempted to cleave his head from his shoulders to complete the dark ritual.

As the blade began to sink into beard and throat the dwarf maid's chest burst with the head of a javelin. There was a flash of green energy and the beard and some blood vanished into the axe.

A group of human adventurers had happened upon the clearing and saw the warlock about to make the ritual sacrifice. A woman in clerical vestments stepped forward and cast a spell to restore Falconcry's torn throat. A male in leathers and furs stepped forward and retrieved his javelin and stowed the axe at his belt.

Falconcry was returned to his clan and completed his studies. His beard now only two inches below the chin was looked upon as childish and emasculating by his fellow dwarves. As he continued his training his beard still would not grow.

When he should have had the ability to cure wounds and cast blessings of Malo the powers would not come. In frustration he waved his hands at the ceiling of the temple when a blast of force energy came forth dropping stone to the floor below.

The dwarves tried to remove the curse but it would not abate and Falconcry was cast out.

Falconcry left to commune with Malo in the deep forests when his perception of her changed to more of the human way of thinking of the nature goddess and in time swore an Oath to follow the Ancient ways of the forest taking Joy in the beauty of nature and capturing it with a painter's brush. Now he wanders combining his paladin training with whatever powers were granted to him from the blow of the missing axe.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I don't. At my table you can't dip Hexblade.

[JNAProductions]

I don't. At my table you can't dip Hexblade.

Why do you disallow it?

And what exactly are your houserules, pertaining to that?

[DarknessEternal]

It's completely irrelevant.

[OldTrees1]

Why stop at 1st level? Warlock 2 is nice. So is 3. And 4. And 5. 6 sucks but 7 is nice. All of a sudden your "1 level dip" became a 2:1 multiclass, or at least a 3:1 multiclass.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't. At my table you can't dip Hexblade. Likewise.

Why do you disallow it? And what exactly are your houserules, pertaining to that? You get an answer to that when you show up at my table. Otherwise, it doesn't matter and nobody owes you an explanation :smallwink:

[JNAProductions]

Likewise.

You get an answer to that when you show up at my table. Otherwise, it doesn't matter and nobody owes you an explanation :smallwink:

Excellent way of continuing the discussion.

Really, what's the issue? It results, far more often than not, in a stronger PC. Not so much for, say, a Bard (Shield is great, an extra slot is nice, but honestly, Bards don't gain a ton from this) but for a Paladin? Hell, even at level 20, chances are a Hexblade 1/Paladin 19 (well, I'd go Paladin 6/Hexblade 1/Paladin +13) is stronger than a Paladin 20.

But why is that a problem? Why is having a strong PC problematic? A Paladin 10/Hexblade 1 is not problematically more powerful than a Fighter 11, a Wizard 11, or even a Paladin 11. If your players want to optimize, let them. If they steamroll your planned encounters, make the encounters harder in the future (but let them enjoy their time of being BAMFs).

I can understand objecting to the default fluff, but if the default fluff is an issue... Change it. All Hexblade 1 gets you is...

-SR recharging 1st level slot
-2 Warlock spells known
-2 Cantrips
-Hexblade's Curse
-Hex Warrior

Assuming you go Paladin 6 (for that tasty, TASTY aura! also Heavy Armor) then Hexblade, then Paladin the rest of the way, then the fluff need not be that you made a pact with a magical weapon. It could be you refocus yourself, exploring the magic that your oath powers, and learning a new way of channeling it.

[Pex]

Don't even need a Pact. You're just one character. As a Holy Warrior you lead by example. You inspire. It's about your presence. It's how you fight. You don't fight with muscles nor speed. It's your spirit that guides you. Others don't need to be exactly like you. They're to follow your example in their own means. Meanwhile you are filled with holy power you can unleash either through your weapon to smite or blast afar with energy to down your foe.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Why do you disallow it?

And what exactly are your houserules, pertaining to that?

I don't like it mechanically or thematically, is the reason. I don't do any houserules for it. You can play it straight or not at all. Simple, really.

[Sigreid]

In practice, I don't make my players justify their choices.

If for some reason the player wanted to, a pact, as they are written doesn't have to be a life long bond. The awakening of power can very easily be a simple this for that transaction.

[Tanarii]

I don't. At my table you can't dip Hexblade.
I just didn't allow Hexblade at all when I opened up my campaign to Xanathars subclasses.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I just didn't allow Hexblade at all when I opened up my campaign to Xanathars subclasses.

I find this a lot more reasonable than being choosy about how many levels you're now required to pre-invest into Hexblade before you're allowed to play it.

On topic: Hexblade being bare on its own fluff is actually a benefit in this regard (thought I still would prefer if it wasn't) it's so open to interpretation that you can fit tons of ideas into it.

The way we run it for my Hexblade Paladin is that in a botched resurrection ritual, a sizeable fragment of his soul was sealed into the diamond they were trying to use for it (rather than the alternative of his soul being ripped apart and traded to hell) and he can affix that gem to weapons, using that fragment to empower them. It works nicely on the (in my opinion) arbitrary restriction against binding sentient weapons as well, there's a real tangible risk of losing that part of himself altogether if the sentient weapon overpowers him.

The internals of the deal that my Paladin isn't really aware of since he made the deal in a period of being dead, is that an agent of some god from the afterlife (Kelemvor, Raven Queen, a god of death of any alignment really) takes a trade in part of your soul to continue on in life. You might never get that part of yourself back, it's a steep price.

[Verble]

I wouldn't dip and just handwaved it. I have a 5 rogue/ 2 warlock and his patron has played a major role in his personal story, despite him only having a couple levels.

I do dip some classes, but hexblade is a badly designed fix for blade pact.

[CheddarChampion]

If you can change the fluff it becomes pretty straightforward.
A paladin can make a pact with a holy blade and thus be inducted into a righteous order.
A swords bard learns not-bladesinging from some fey warriors in exchange for a tale every season.
A sorcerer, seeking martial power, contacts the king of blacksmiths. He forges a blade tied to the sorcerer's blood but keeps some of the sorcerer's innate for himself.

But the base fluff is more than 'just some sentient weapon.' It involves curses and soul manipulation, plus there is some kind of hint towards the Raven Queen. IIRC. That kind of thing is much harder to fit into a character concept. You can't get away from this so easily because of the class features that are tied to this.

In my eyes there's two types of warlock patrons: those that are rigid in the source of power and those that are flexible. GOO could be Cthulhu, mind flayers, gith, friendly little green men, etc. Archfey could be a fairy queen, the emperor of all elves, a coven of hags, the oldest ent, etc. Fiend can only be devils or demons. Hexblade can only be shadowy weapon artifacts that steal souls and put out bad juju. Unless you flavor it as something that doesn't fit with most of the subclass features.

Why would the king of blacksmiths be tied to hexes or have the ability to capture souls? Why would Fey warriors? Why would a righteous order?

[Reynaerde]

“I am gonna make a pact, eh, on second thought...”I see you have met my Whisper Bard!

They found a book with the ritual for the pact, it sounded useful, then it was kinda scary, then there was another shiny magical temptation and another way to lose their soul...

[Unoriginal]

I disagree that dipping in Hexblade is that strong, but I would say multiclassing into Warlock doesn't really need a justification.

Anyone can make a contract, and if you're a person of interest there will be entities willing to deal with you.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I just didn't allow Hexblade at all when I opened up my campaign to Xanathars subclasses.

It's not that bad straight classed imo, mechanically or thematically.

[Tanarii]

I do dip some classes, but hexblade is a badly designed fix for blade pact.
You spelled "overpowered and unnecessary" wrong.

[cutlery]

You spelled "overpowered and unnecessary" wrong.

Pre-hexblade (and I should say I don't really like hexblade), blade pact is really not that great. High invocation tax to be meh at one handed weapons, no shield access (without feats), and probably still relying on eldritch blast most of the time due to how squishy you are. Might as well go tome and get shillelagh for when you absolutely must hit something in melee (and a SCAG cantrip on top of that).

With medium armor, shields, and the ability to use two handed weapons, the hexblade fixes some of these issues - one might actually occasionally choose to use melee instead of eldritch blasts, on purpose.

Cha to hit and damage is too much though - that never should have happened.

Also, building around hexblade's curse sucks, and the summoned spectre is just weird and has basically nothing to do with intelligent weapons - a real missed opportunity there.

But medium armor, shields, and two handed weapons? That's nice, and should have been part of the blade pact (or 2h with pact and armor with an invocation) all along. There was a UA blade invocation to allow proficiency with armor, not sure why that never made it in.

[Lille]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a PC being powerful. If it's taking away from other people's enjoyment, that's one thing, but just being more powerful isn't something bad.


snip

Just thought I'd mention, IIRC Blade Pact could always use two-handed weapons. That's not something new to Hexblade.

[NecessaryWeevil]

There are lots of ways to depict it in your character's story. For example, for my upcoming Scourge Aasimar Redemption Paladin, it was arranged by his father as a way to empower him and his family and prove certain detractors wrong. But as soon as he tasted the nature of the entity he'd attuned to, he said "Oh hell no, not going any further down that road."

As for justifying it, though, it doesn't need justifying any more than Fighter 20 needs justifying.

[MaxWilson]

How do your justify only taking one level in hexblade warlock?

“I am gonna make a pact, eh, on second thought...”

I’m just having trouble looking at it and I was hoping to get a little help from the experts around here about how you make it work.

"I'm going to steal some knowledge and then bail before the entity becomes fully aware of me." Just make sure you bail before the Pact Boon at level 3.

[cutlery]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a PC being powerful. If it's taking away from other people's enjoyment, that's one thing, but just being more powerful isn't something bad.


I think that relative power is directly tied to enjoyment; if one PC can mop up combat, again and again without the assistance of others, or one PC can dominate the social pillar - those are problems. I haven't seen people get too bent out of shape over exploration, usually because the party makes many of those decisions (as exploration quickly leads to social or combat encounters), but it would take a rather good-natured group for one character to completely dominate combat to the point the other characters aren't even necessary and for no one among the players to get irritated with that situation.

Characters much more powerful than their peers that don't result in discord at the table seems the exception, rather than the rule.

[JNAProductions]

I think that relative power is directly tied to enjoyment; if one PC can mop up combat, again and again without the assistance of others, or one PC can dominate the social pillar - those are problems. I haven't seen people get too bent out of shape over exploration, usually because the party makes many of those decisions (as exploration quickly leads to social or combat encounters), but it would take a rather good-natured group for one character to completely dominate combat to the point the other characters aren't even necessary and for no one among the players to get irritated with that situation.

Characters much more powerful than their peers that don't result in discord at the table seems the exception, rather than the rule.

Right, but is +1 or +2 to-hit and damage, or a few castings of Shield on a Paladin really supposed to be dominating combat?

[cutlery]

Right, but is +1 or +2 to-hit and damage, or a few castings of Shield on a Paladin really supposed to be dominating combat?

Depends on the tier; an early hexblade dip means a paladin can be satisfied with a str of 15 or a dex of 14; which makes them able to spend ASIs on feats much more quickly.

There is a reason the Stone Sorcerer didn't make it into a book - it was too strong.


Hexblades can do whatever it is they need to do without cha to hit and damage. Give them a smaller, unrelated rock to compensate, but that's huge and makes the paladin/sorcerer/warlock blend stronger than it already might have been.

[sithlordnergal]

I don't really bother with justifying dips of any kind, mostly because I'm more interested in the mechanical side of character creation then the fluff. I've taken Hexblade on pretty much all of my Bards and Sorcerers, I don't think I've ever justified it or really RPed it out, with the exception of one character, but even then it didn't go too far. I feel kind of the same about all multiclasses though. No need to justify why I have a Barbarian/Warlock, a Paladin/Druid/Sorcerer, or a Monk/Druid, all that matters is that they're fun to play and they do some fun/cool things.

EDIT: Actually, I have a question. Why do you feel the need to justify it? For you DMs, why do you feel the need for the player to justify it?

[Mikal]

I don't like it mechanically or thematically, is the reason. I don't do any houserules for it. You can play it straight or not at all. Simple, really.

If you allow other multiclassing but not Hexblade that’s a house rule dude.

[ThatoneGuy84]

Current campaign (because we started at 3)
I played off in the charactors backstory for her warlock levels.
But I'm also not "dipping"
I'm techniqually Dipping Pal

Charactors background includes a blade in which visited her dreams, offering her Glory and Power, during her training as a Paladin. Eventually an agreement was made, and she was thrown out of the Paladin Order.
Only took 2 levels pally, so ite my "dip"
Warlock - 3 so far but will take to 5 for sure for thirsting blade, Eldrict smite.
Then maybe I'll learn to be a bard, or sorcerer, or whatever I like that feels thematic in the storyline, or I'll stick hexblade/blade pact all the way thru. Who knows.

I dont see an issue with hexblade dip anymore then any other dips, but I do still see how it is "front loaded"

[jjordan]

How do your justify only taking one level in hexblade warlock?

“I am gonna make a pact, eh, on second thought...”

I’m just having trouble looking at it and I was hoping to get a little help from the experts around here about how you make it work.
Not an expert and I don't play one on TV. Justification is up to the player, as is a little advance planning so the whole thing can be worked into the game. I'll discuss it with the player and play it as we agree. But I'm a jerk, compared to most DMs. If they make a deal with a weapon then the weapon is gonna have some demands that need to be met and there will be consequences if those demands aren't met. And there might be consequences even if the demands are met.

[T.G. Oskar]

There are lots of ways to depict it in your character's story. For example, for my upcoming Scourge Aasimar Redemption Paladin, it was arranged by his father as a way to empower him and his family and prove certain detractors wrong. But as soon as he tasted the nature of the entity he'd attuned to, he said "Oh hell no, not going any further down that road."

Ha! Another character that happens to be a Scourge Aasimar AND a Paladin!

Since I'm aiming to play one of these in any case we do Descent into Avernus (though the build is Crown Paladin rather than Redemption Paladin - it *may* change based on whether TCoE adds the expanded spell list with Warding Bond and Spirit Guardians), I made the character a Mulhorandi. The reason for 2 levels of Hexblade Warlock is that the character, though a worshipper of the Mul pantheon and thus to its ruling caste, has been blessed by one of the minor gods - Khesfu, who wards and protects Re-Horakhty when crossing the Afterlife. The character uses a spear rather than a sword, and some of the powers she acquires involve having an essentially enchanted spear (to echo Khesfu's javelin), Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast + Grasp of Hadar (essentially Khesfu's javelin, with a small chain to pull enemies away), Booming Blade (mostly taking the fluff from Toll the Dead, where the thunder damage is basically the warning bell to those who would move away from my character) and Shield (essentially evoking how Khesfu would protect lord Re-Horakhty).

I'm pretty excited to justify all that, and I went for 2 levels just to get the extra spell slot and infusions, but I feel it adds to the character. Though, pretty obviously, it's to make the character a lot more efficient; the way it's built, it should be a pretty brutal tank.

[Tanarii]

Probably the most important two things in regards to deciding justification is:
- does your DM rule you lose powers if you act against/betray your Patron? Or are they yours?
- does your DM rule that patrons are active / effect play directly? Or are they purely a background element?

Both of those also hold true for a full warlock of course. But for people that just want to dip for mechanical reasons and 'refluff' it however they choose, they may run into DMs that rule certain classes come with certain Mechanical and/or in-play consequences.

[OldTrees1]

Probably the most important two things in regards to deciding justification is:
- does your DM rule you lose powers if you act against/betray your Patron? Or are they yours?
- does your DM rule that patrons are active / effect play directly? Or are they purely a background element?

Both of those also hold true for a full warlock of course. But for people that just want to dip for mechanical reasons and 'refluff' it however they choose, they may run into DMs that rule certain classes come with certain Mechanical and/or in-play consequences.

Those are good questions to ask.

PHB Fluff notes that there are multiple kinds of Warlocks. You are speaking of the "a cleric and a deity" model an not acknowledging the "a master and an apprentice" model mentioned 5 lines later (pg 105).

Personally I prefer variations of the former, including unmentioned variations like "Effect of ongoing exposure", but I will acknowledge that 5E expanded the fluff to include learned power rather than only channeled power.

But those are good questions to ask.

[Porcupinata]

Why do you disallow it?

Because multiclassing doesn't work well. It either produces broken or overly optimised characters with very little inbetween. If someone has a character idea that they think can only be realised using a broken multiclass combination then we can talk about whether it's a viable character idea and whether there's an existing subclass that's close enough for it to work. If someone has an optimisation idea for how to make their character more powerful by "dipping" into another class then tough. We don't do that here.


And what exactly are your houserules, pertaining to that?

"We won't be using the optional multiclassing rules in this campaign."

[cutlery]

"We won't be using the optional multiclassing rules in this campaign."

Which makes a lot of sense to me (see also: 27 point buy over rolled stats).

One of the nice things about limited class choices is you can think more about the backstory and personality of the character; if you're the sort of person (like me) that wants to know what all the options are first, you have a rather large number of permutations of multiclasses to consider.
Cutting these out is nice.

Plus, the fact that the designers sort of threw up their hands and said multiclassing is optional underscores that it isn't likely to be well balanced.

If something organically happens in the course of the campaign, I can see making certain multiclass combinations available; but the flipside is if everything is on the table from level 1, I'd have to assume (as a DM) that it is essentially hard mode and the players are likely to engage in strategies that make a number of encounters trivial. Despite what some might say, making all encounters trivial stops being fun pretty fast, so a ramp up in encounter deadliness is required. This sucks if not everyone at the table is in for that sort of game - and one way of addressing that is to take multiclassing off the list of options entirely.

If there are certain classes that only rarely get played in a no-multiclass scenario but that get played all the time in multiclass ones, there's something funny going on.

[KorvinStarmast]

I’m just having trouble looking at it and I was hoping to get a little help from the experts around here about how you make it work. I simply don't. I have arrived at the conclusion that the fiction does not fit, at all.
They tried to 'fix' the pact of the blade and screwed up.

A sentient blade is already in the book as a magic item. See DMG.

What we are considering is simply adding that for pact of the blade medium armor comes with, or, that the charisma attack bonus comes with.

As nobody at our tables has yet wanted to play a warlock besides me (the limited spell slots is a real obstacle) I still don't need to make a final decision.
Hex Blade as is: I just don't like it.

Elric of Melnibone had Stormbringer, the actual blade, in his possession.

[OldTrees1]

I simply don't. I have arrived at the conclusion that the fiction does not fit, at all.
They tried to 'fix' the pact of the blade and screwed up.

A sentient blade is already in the book as a magic item. See DMG.

What we are considering is simply adding that for pact of the blade medium armor comes with, or, that the charisma attack bonus comes with.

As nobody at our tables has yet wanted to play a warlock besides me (the limited spell slots is a real obstacle) I still don't need to make a final decision.
Hex Blade as is: I just don't like it.

Elric of Melnibone had Stormbringer, the actual blade, in his possession.

Yet more confirmation the Hexblade official fluff is messed up when it, relatively speaking, does not fit representing the relationship & bond at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yet more confirmation the Hexblade official fluff is messed up when it, relatively speaking, does not fit representing the relationship & bond at all. I love it when someone can say what I was thinking more concisely than I do. +1. :)

[Valmark]

Yet more confirmation the Hexblade official fluff is messed up when it, relatively speaking, does not fit representing the relationship & bond at all.

Why not? Seems pretty straightforward.

[OldTrees1]

Why not? Seems pretty straightforward.

I would invite you to review the Hexblade fluff. All of it.

Then consider Elric of Melnibone and Stormbringer.

I expect you can see how Hexblade's fluff about a relationship with a weapon / not a weapon that is blackrazor / not blackrazor that was forged by the Wee Jas / not Wee Jas / whoever this Raven Queen is now and yet is in multiple weapons, but somehow different than your hex weapon ... does not do a good job, relative to the DMG rules, of representing pacts like Elric of Melnibone and Stormbringer or Artemis Entreri and Charon's Claw.

The other pacts had less concrete / more abstract details and yet had less waffling about said details. If I wanted to have a GOOlock the fluff did not restrict that to the Elder Evil Elmo and waffle about whether it was Elmo or not.

[cutlery]

I would invite you to review the Hexblade fluff. All of it.


There are two main paragraphs of fluff in XGtE; the first two sentences are pretty clear that the patron is the "mysterious entity" that "manifests in" certain sentient weapons. It doesn't specify that it manifests in all sentient weapons or that a particular sentient weapon is the patron.

It isn't a very deep or complex set of fluff, but few other patrons are that complex, either - there is a similar pair of paragraphs for the celestial patron. Most archetypes aren't that fluffy, anyway. If a DM wants more fluff, they add it.

The Fiend or The Great Old One patrons from the PHB are similarly minimal fluff.

The fluff isn't the problem; if weak or thin fluff was an issue then lots of other classes are in trouble.

[Valmark]

I would invite you to review the Hexblade fluff. All of it.

Then consider Elric of Melnibone and Stormbringer.

I expect you can see how Hexblade's fluff about a relationship with a weapon / not a weapon that is blackrazor / not blackrazor that was forged by the Wee Jas / not Wee Jas / whoever this Raven Queen is now and yet is in multiple weapons, but somehow different than your hex weapon ... does not do a good job, relative to the DMG rules, of representing pacts like Elric of Melnibone and Stormbringer or Artemis Entreri and Charon's Claw.

The other pacts had less concrete / more abstract details and yet had less waffling about said details. If I wanted to have a GOOlock the fluff did not restrict that to the Elder Evil Elmo and waffle about whether it was Elmo or not.

I don't know the two characters you mentioned (actually I know Artemis but never red the books) but this is not at all the fluff of the Hexblade.

You don't make the pact with the weapon- you make the pact with whatever entity is connected to it. The weapon is basically a cellphone.

Then it says that since the Raven Queen made the first one it could be that she is the one behind all the Hexblade's pact, but it's only speculation.

[OldTrees1]

There are two main paragraphs of fluff in XGtE; the first two sentences are pretty clear that the patron is the "mysterious entity" that "manifests in" certain sentient weapons. It doesn't specify that it manifests in all sentient weapons or that a particular sentient weapon is the patron.

It isn't a very deep or complex set of fluff, but few other patrons are that complex, either - there is a similar pair of paragraphs for the celestial patron. Most archetypes aren't that fluffy, anyway. If a DM wants more fluff, they add it.

The Fiend or The Great Old One patrons from the PHB are similarly minimal fluff.

The fluff isn't the problem; if weak or thin fluff was an issue then lots of other classes are in trouble.

Unlike the other patrons (3 PHB Patrons, the Undying, or the Celestial), the Hexblade Patron is very specific and yet not very detailed. Those two traits are at odds with each other. If the Fiend patron said all Fiend warlocks serve a singular nebulous fiend and then waffles about the identify of that fiend, then I would level the same fluff criticism at that patron. I would rather the Hexblade fluff either be as flexible as the other abstract patrons, or provide details to match the specificity rather than waffling. Oh, and I would vastly prefer the former solution over the later.

Edit: Oh and while I do criticize the fluff, my group is more than willing to replace bad fluff with good fluff. So it is not a problem for our group, even if it is not sticking to the original fluff.


I don't know the two characters you mentioned (actually I know Artemis but never red the books) but this is not at all the fluff of the Hexblade.

You don't make the pact with the weapon- you make the pact with whatever entity is connected to it. The weapon is basically a cellphone.

Then it says that since the Raven Queen made the first one it could be that she is the one behind all the Hexblade's pact, but it's only speculation.

Yes ... and that is where the other half of my criticism started. They made it extremely narrow (there is a singular hexblade patron) and yet were excessively vague (they waffled about the identity) at the same time.

For context: Artemis Entreri was one of the antagonists of Drizzt, but came across an intelligent magic weapon (Charon's Claw) that can drain the life of whoever holds/is hit by it. Imagine the 3E Ego rules but with the option for the weapon to slay the wielder if it is in control.

[Valmark]

Unlike the other patrons (3 PHB Patrons, the Undying, or the Celestial), the Hexblade Patron is very specific and yet not very detailed. Those two traits are at odds with each other. If the Fiend patron said all Fiend warlocks serve a singular nebulous fiend and then waffles about the identify of that fiend, then I would level the same fluff criticism at that patron. I would rather the Hexblade fluff either be as flexible as the other abstract patrons, or provide details to match the specificity rather than waffling. Oh, and I would vastly prefer the former solution over the later.

Yes ... and that is where the other half of my criticism started. They made it extremely narrow and yet were excessively vague at the same time.

Again, it doesn't say all warlocks serve a singular entity, but that the entities all warlock serve might be the same one- and it clearly states which one it is.

The fluff doesn't restrict you in any way, which is what you said. You could criticize that they gave you only one example, I guess, but that doesn't make it narrow. At the very least it's the opposite of vague.

EDIT: Then Charon's Claw has literally nothing to do with warlocks in general it seems.

[KorvinStarmast]

Imagine the 3E Ego rules but with the option for the weapon to slay the wielder if it is in control. Which is what Stormbringer ultimately did. :smallcool:

[cutlery]

If the Fiend patron said all Fiend warlocks serve a singular nebulous fiend and then waffles about the identify of that fiend, then I would level the same fluff criticism at that patron.

That's a fair point - I'm not trying to argue the Hexblade fluff is good.

It seems like they had a playstyle in mind from previous editions and just slapped stuff together to fluff it (badly). I don't think the fluff is as egregious as the crunch (cha to hit/damage, argh!).


On the other hand, a sentient weapon that is itself a patron would be really cool, and I don't see why they didn't just do that. To accommodate different weapon types, perhaps, but there's no reason a sentient weapon would require a minion to wield weapons of the same type that I can see - at least not exclusively.

The specter wouldn't really fit that, of course, and the curse mechanic is random, too.

They should have just called it "spooky shadowfell patron" or something.

[OldTrees1]

Again, it doesn't say all warlocks serve a singular entity, but that the entities all warlock serve might be the same one- and it clearly states which one it is.

The fluff doesn't restrict you in any way, which is what you said. You could criticize that they gave you only one example, I guess, but that doesn't make it narrow. At the very least it's the opposite of vague.

EDIT: Then Charon's Claw has literally nothing to do with warlocks in general it seems.

Let me review the text again.
1) It really sounds like they are restricting it to a singular entity. All Hexblades serve the same patron.
2) It really does not "clearly state which one it is". The closest it gets is mentioning speculation.
So it does restrict them all to this one patron and it is also vague about who this patron is.

A more abstract intelligent item patron or abstract "item as phone" patron would be less narrow and thus work better with being vague. However restriction of it being this singular entity with no meaningful details is very restricting.

[Mr Adventurer]

OTOH a secret network of eternal mystical spirit-blades sounds badass as ****. Swords Comic is one take on it.

[Valmark]

Let me review the text again.
1) It really sounds like they are restricting it to a singular entity. All Hexblades serve the same patron.
2) It really does not "clearly state which one it is". The closest it gets is mentioning speculation.
So it does restrict them all to this one patron and it is also vague about who this patron is.

A more abstract intelligent item patron or abstract "item as phone" patron would be less narrow and thus work better with being vague. However restriction of it being this singular entity with no meaningful details is very restricting.

I dunno, I'm just not reading the singular entity besides when it talks about the RQ (and this of course means I don't agree with the second point, since it's tied to the first).


OTOH a secret network of eternal mystical spirit-blades sounds badass as ****. Swords Comic is one take on it.

There is something similar in... Can't remember the english name for the rpg. Where the PCs are people that became spirits and inhabit items (generally weapons) and go on to possess and eat souls to gather power and come back to life.
Generally weapons because to feed on a soul that is not your host you need to be used to kill the person in question, so with a weapon form it's obviously easier then say, a ring.

[cutlery]

OTOH a secret network of eternal mystical spirit-blades sounds badass as ****. Swords Comic is one take on it.

So... He-Man (https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/EXELzMTVtTKK4gxg395yF31MaeQ=/1200x675/2019/12/19/a3a6ed4e-5670-4125-b2bb-b19cc686c767/twitter-in-stream-wide-heman-mattel.jpg) was a warlock?

[zinycor]

So... He-Man (https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/EXELzMTVtTKK4gxg395yF31MaeQ=/1200x675/2019/12/19/a3a6ed4e-5670-4125-b2bb-b19cc686c767/twitter-in-stream-wide-heman-mattel.jpg) was a warlock?

I like this idea

[Tanarii]

The current fluff is basically "shadowfell (probably raven queen) something something sentient weapons".

Basically an excuse for OP AC/weapon skills on a full caster, with some shadowfell themed caster stuff because they front loaded it so hard they left themselves a bunch of blank spots to fill in.

[cutlery]

The current fluff is basically "shadowfell (probably raven queen) something something sentient weapons".

Basically an excuse for OP AC/weapon skills on a full caster, with some shadowfell themed caster stuff because they front loaded it so hard they left themselves a bunch of blank spots to fill in.

And they still didn't really manage to make melee preferable to eldritch blast spam, even with heavy invocation investment, short of the occasional smite (which works just as good at range with improved pact weapon!)

[zinycor]

And they still didn't really manage to make melee preferable to eldritch blast spam, even with heavy invocation investment, short of the occasional smite (which works just as good at range with improved pact weapon!)

The exblade in my game is an eldritch blast machine gun... is amazing really xD

[cutlery]

The exblade in my game is an eldritch blast machine gun... is amazing really xD

What I see and hear in my head every time I play a blaster warlock. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72If8Npxbcc)

[Neorealist]

I don't. Justify it that is. If someone wants to play that or any other combination of official classes, the fact that they 'want' to is more than sufficient justification for me to see what they can do with it.

Their backstory will often include the specifics of whatever combination they are aiming for should they be feeling creative; but I'm fine with "*shrug* I like the idea".

[Edea]

...you know, I just went back to see if I could make the hexblade less "problematic," and TBH after re-reading it the only thing in the whole archetype that sets my 'wait a minute...' senses off is the part of Hex Warrior that lets you sub Cha for Str/Dex with weapon attacks. The rest of it's kinda tame; I think for Hexblade's Curse I'd have it award temporary hit points on the kill, rather than actually healing the hexblade, but that part's 1/enc even after 14th.

If we just removed the 'sub in Cha' part of Hex Warrior and left the rest of it as-is, is it still OP?

[cutlery]

If we just removed the 'sub in Cha' part of Hex Warrior and left the rest of it as-is, is it still OP?

Not at all; well, other than eldritch blast/agonizing blast working for dips, but thats warlock baseline, not Hexblade.

[MaxWilson]

...you know, I just went back to see if I could make the hexblade less "problematic," and TBH after re-reading it the only thing in the whole archetype that sets my 'wait a minute...' senses off is the part of Hex Warrior that lets you sub Cha for Str/Dex with weapon attacks. The rest of it's kinda tame; I think for Hexblade's Curse I'd have it award temporary hit points on the kill, rather than actually healing the hexblade, but that part's 1/enc even after 14th.

If we just removed the 'sub in Cha' part of Hex Warrior and left the rest of it as-is, is it still OP?

IMO yes. Using Cha for weapons isn't even important for several Hexblade-leveraging builds including nuclear wizard and bardlock. It's still a bunch of proficiencies, a concentrationless better-than-Hex 1/rest damage boost (short range though), access to some sweet spells including Shield and Wrathful Smite, and a touch of healing. A Lore Bardlock would still very much want to dip Hexblade more than any other warlock patron, at least from powergaming perspective.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't. Justify it that is. If someone wants to play that or any other combination of official classes, the fact that they 'want' to is more than sufficient justification for me to see what they can do with it. A fine approach, for playing the game. (which is what's it's all about in the end)

[Mr Adventurer]

IMO yes. Using Cha for weapons isn't even important for several Hexblade-leveraging builds including nuclear wizard and bardlock. It's still a bunch of proficiencies, a concentrationless better-than-Hex 1/rest damage boost (short range though), access to some sweet spells including Shield and Wrathful Smite, and a touch of healing. A Lore Bardlock would still very much want to dip Hexblade more than any other warlock patron, at least from powergaming perspective.

Completely disagree. The proficiencies could come from a number of classes; the Curse is hardly "better than Hex" except that it doesn't take Concentration; access not to 'a bunch' but to two spells known (except by scroll, much less useful especially for the two you quoted); and an amount of healing that is absolutely minimal (I assume you mean via Curse? Since you're only dipping that's a max of 6 hit points per enemy that dies that was also Cursed). It's good, yes, I don't dispute that, largely for Charisma synergy. But I really don't think it's overpowered.

Edit: ok, I don't necessarily disagree with the bit about a Lore Bard. But one combination being preferable seems fine. There's still nothing there that makes it bonkers.

[Klorox]

Completely disagree. The proficiencies could come from a number of classes; the Curse is hardly "better than Hex" except that it doesn't take Concentration; access not to 'a bunch' but to two spells known (except by scroll, much less useful especially for the two you quoted); and an amount of healing that is absolutely minimal (I assume you mean via Curse? Since you're only dipping that's a max of 6 hit points per enemy that dies that was also Cursed). It's good, yes, I don't dispute that, largely for Charisma synergy. But I really don't think it's overpowered.

Edit: ok, I don't necessarily disagree with the bit about a Lore Bard. But one combination being preferable seems fine. There's still nothing there that makes it bonkers.The fact is the hexblade dip is everything a warlock dip is, except it’s better without any drawbacks.

[Mr Adventurer]

The fact is the hexblade dip is everything a warlock dip is, except it’s better without any drawbacks.

Yes, that's how Patron benefits work?

Assuming you mean it's better than any other patron, without the Charisma to attack, it's much less clear, and again if it's better for one particular build then that's okay.

[Klorox]

Yes, that's how Patron benefits work?

Assuming you mean it's better than any other patron, without the Charisma to attack, it's much less clear, and again if it's better for one particular build then that's okay.

Yes, I was referring to the hexblade being better than any other warlock dip.

How could it be “much less clear”? You get the exact same benefits as any other warlock dip, except you also get hexblades curse, medium armor, shields, CHA to attack.

It not only feels like the optimal choice, it feels like you’re gimping your character if you choose anything but hexblade.

[Mr Adventurer]

Yes, I was referring to the hexblade being better than any other warlock dip.

How could it be “much less clear”? You get the exact same benefits as any other warlock dip, except you also get hexblades curse, medium armor, shields, CHA to attack.

It not only feels like the optimal choice, it feels like you’re gimping your character if you choose anything but hexblade.

The thread of discussion is specifically about a houseruled version without Charisma to weapon attacks. As mentioned in both of my posts.

But also, again, the discussion isn't about which Warlock patron is better - it's about whether Hexblade is overpowered.

[Klorox]

The thread of discussion is specifically about a houseruled version without Charisma to weapon attacks. As mentioned in both of my posts.

Ok, and that means you can choose to ignore medium armor proficiency, shield proficiency, and hexblades curse?

C’mon man.

[Mr Adventurer]

Ok, and that means you can choose to ignore medium armor proficiency, shield proficiency, and hexblades curse?

C’mon man.

The hell? My first post is literally responding directly to comments about those features. This feels bizarre. Like, are you imagining I've said something else?

Edit: whatever, I'm out.

[Xervous]

OTOH a secret network of eternal mystical spirit-blades sounds badass as ****. Swords Comic is one take on it.

There was a 3e Dungeon adventure about two opposed crime syndicates that were survived by intelligent weapons mind slaving whoever picked them up to continue the eternal rivalry. Yet another take if a great deal more mundane... as mundane as you can get with magical talking swords.

[Asisreo1]

I don't understand how someone can completely separate fluff from their character. I don't really care how they justify their powers but as a fellow player and a DM, I'd rather a fluff where some demonic weapon forces a cursed pact on you or however you want to stray from official fluff than pretend like the fluff never existed in the first place.

The quintessential murder hobo isn't the guy that kills merchant NPC's because his alignment says he should and his backstory is edgy, at least that guy is actually engaging in the world in a non-gamist view.

The murder hobo is the guy with no backstory that joins a group of adventurers for no real reason other than because they know wherever they go brings conflict and bloodshed and because the murder hobo character is bored.

Not really interested in having computers play my games. You can optimize all you want but problems will always arise when you plan on forever being the mysterious, insomniac stranger to everyone.

[KorvinStarmast]

The murder hobo is the guy with no backstory that joins a group of adventurers for no real reason other than because they know wherever they go brings conflict and bloodshed and because the murder hobo character is bored. In short, Belkar Bitterleaf. :smallsmile:

[Xervous]

I don't understand how someone can completely separate fluff from their character. I don't really care how they justify their powers but as a fellow player and a DM, I'd rather a fluff where some demonic weapon forces a cursed pact on you or however you want to stray from official fluff than pretend like the fluff never existed in the first place.

Oh but there will be fluff if the players are at all concerned with some semblance of story. Beyond the mechanics there are just suggestions. GM having final say is always ever the case, but not all players are delighted to choose between cardboard cutouts for a starting point in defining their character.

[Asisreo1]

Oh but there will be fluff if the players are at all concerned with some semblance of story. Beyond the mechanics there are just suggestions. GM having final say is always ever the case, but not all players are delighted to choose between cardboard cutouts for a starting point in defining their character.
A good start would be those four blocks in the upper right of the character sheet that nobody fills out rather than class. 😉

[KorvinStarmast]

A good start would be those four blocks in the upper right of the character sheet that nobody fills out rather than class. 😉 Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws. Right? :smallbiggrin:

[Xervous]

A good start would be those four blocks in the upper right of the character sheet that nobody fills out rather than class. 😉

And so it dances back to a lack of caring about story. I’ll aggressively pepper my backstory with details expecting the GM to pull back on some such that the character ends up with a metaphorical jigsaw edge for how it ties to the world from session 0. Some people are there for beer and pretzels which the system can deliver. It’s the disconnect of expectations that leads to issues and the eventual expulsion of 100% combat murderhobos who treat all the other characters actions as thinly veiled invitations for getting into a conflict. If I had done a better job of highlighting expectations for that campaign I’m sure the problem player wouldn’t have joined. If I had pitched it as murder dungeon stimulator 2017 I’d have gotten far different characters from the rest of the players if they even bothered to join.

A player’s disconnect is not necessarily the system’s fault, it’s just initially an innocent misunderstanding. Where it grows from that depends on the actions of everyone involved.

[Willie the Duck]

I simply don't. I have arrived at the conclusion that the fiction does not fit, at all.
They tried to 'fix' the pact of the blade and screwed up.
A sentient blade is already in the book as a magic item. See DMG.
What we are considering is simply adding that for pact of the blade medium armor comes with, or, that the charisma attack bonus comes with.
As nobody at our tables has yet wanted to play a warlock besides me (the limited spell slots is a real obstacle) I still don't need to make a final decision.
Hex Blade as is: I just don't like it.
Elric of Melnibone had Stormbringer, the actual blade, in his possession.
I think this touches on or near a huge number of the issues people have with both hexblades and hexblade dips.
I think, on a fundamental level, a lot of people don't like what hexblade brings, regardless of how actually much it increases build power. The reasons are multiple--

The fluff doesn't appear to be great
Mechanically, it just plain "feels" like a bladelock fix rather than its own thing
Virtually every other cha-based class seems a little better by dipping into it rather than being a pure single-class character, and...
A ______ with a hexblade dip seems far-and-away more popular than an actual hexblade.

The last one, I feel, is the primary objection. This thing isn't popular in and of itself, but it's seen constantly as a power-boost for these other things.
When 5e first came out, sorcerer was in the same boat: 'no one likes this for itself, it's just a way to boost a paladin's nova potential' was an oft-heard criticism (to be fair, that neither of the PHB sorcerer archetypes was without issue undoubtedly played into that).
I think, to a lot of people (myself partially included), if that's all the thing is, why not make it a feat or the like and not have to do the justification?

That said, both the warlock and the sorcerer started* out in 3e with a paper thin justification on top of the mechanical aim of taking a stab at a post-vancian wizard-analog. Now, both of them have fluff so well-loved that the somewhat janky mechanics of each seem to be peoples' primary objections to the classes. So sometimes theme follows form, and sometime the other way around.
*Exaggeration, I know. Hyperbole for effect.

[KorvinStarmast]

That said, both the warlock and the sorcerer started* out in 3e with a paper thin justification on top of the mechanical aim of taking a stab at a post-vancian wizard-analog. Now, both of them have fluff so well-loved that the somewhat janky mechanics of each seem to be peoples' primary objections to the classes. So sometimes theme follows form, and sometime the other way around.
*Exaggeration, I know. Hyperbole for effect. That's an interesting way to see it. I'll belay my usual "cha casters were a bad idea" rant and recall that there were neat threads on the Sorcerer/Lock Multiclass, and Dyndrilliac's posts there are what got me off of "pact of the chain" and onto "pact of the tome" when I finally got to play another 'lock. I still think that sorcerers, due to the criticality of spell selection, are a tough class for neophytes to play, but on the other hand reducing the number of choices is a decent idea.

Vis a vis your Sorcadin point: I still think the best hybrid conceptually (flavor+mechanics match up) is an Ancients Paladin with an Archfey Warlock, but I understand how the min / max on the Sorcadin works out. (Plus, the Con proficiency at level 1 for the sorc was a great sell for me, personally).

[heavyfuel]

How do your justify only taking one level in hexblade warlock?

I don't.

I haven't read every answer, but I'm sure it's been suggested, so I'll just reiterate.

Change the Cha to Atk and dmg to Pact of the Blade, leave Hexblade with Proficiencies and Curse.

It's now on par with other patrons, and pact of the Blade is now actually worth considering.

Now very few people are going for a strict dip. Most will probably go for 4 levels or even 5. No longer do you need to justify it, you made a pact and you invested considerably in this pact.

[sithlordnergal]

I don't understand how someone can completely separate fluff from their character. I don't really care how they justify their powers but as a fellow player and a DM, I'd rather a fluff where some demonic weapon forces a cursed pact on you or however you want to stray from official fluff than pretend like the fluff never existed in the first place.

You see, I'm the opposite. I don't see why players and DMs focus so much on the fluff, because fluff ultimately doesn't matter to me. Without mechanics to back up the fluff, there's no real point to said fluff. Fluff can also be changed to fit the character on a whim, mechanics are a lot more solid and a bit more unchanging. The other issue I find with fluff is that DMs tend to use it to try and restrict multiclassing and such.

Then again, I don't really build a PC for the character, I make a build to test out a build. I'm more interested in what I can do with the cool mechanics and such rather then worrying about "who" the character is. I'll figure out "who" they are later on, usually while I'm playing them.

EDIT: And honestly, the build itself doesn't need to be "good", just that it does something cool/interesting. One Monk build I have is solely designed to have the highest movement speed possible. I do need to rebuild it, because I made some mistakes early on, but still. The entire build is about "How far can I move on a single turn", I don't really have any bonds, flaws, ect. with him. Same with another build I wanna try, where I can only take 4 levels of a class, then I have to multiclass. Can I build an effective character without Extra Attack or 3rd level spells? Can it hold up at level 20?

[cutlery]

You see, I'm the opposite. I don't see why players and DMs focus so much on the fluff, because fluff ultimately doesn't matter to me. Without mechanics to back up the fluff, there's no real point to said fluff. Fluff can also be changed to fit the character on a whim, mechanics are a lot more solid and a bit more unchanging.

Then again, I don't really build a PC for the character, I make a build to test out a build. I'm more interested in what I can do with the cool mechanics and such rather then worrying about "who" the character is. I'll figure out "who" they are later on, usually while I'm playing them.

I agree. This won’t work for every table, of course, but if I want to play a careful swordsman that focuses on one skillful strike, a fighter 2/rogue 18 works pretty well - and the concept doesn’t really require you mess around with thieve’s cant or trying to emulate Bilbo.

On the other hand, tying classes to tropes/archetypes makes things easier for new players and new DMs.

[Asisreo1]

You see, I'm the opposite. I don't see why players and DMs focus so much on the fluff, because fluff ultimately doesn't matter to me. Without mechanics to back up the fluff, there's no real point to said fluff. Fluff can also be changed to fit the character on a whim, mechanics are a lot more solid and a bit more unchanging. The other issue I find with fluff is that DMs tend to use it to try and restrict multiclassing and such.

It's because you're gimping your character narratively out of the campaign, imo.

Imagine someone who came up to your table and their fluff was so wonderful and so connected that the thought of a story with that type of character would be fantastic but the mechanics were unplayable. They couldn't engage in combat if they tried because their character had absolutely nothing there but ribbon features. You'd probably consider them dead-weight and better off staying out of any combat opportunities completely rather than endanger your character or mess up the team's tactics. This can be fine for some but a group eventually wishes that when the combat switch was flipped, all their party members were actually combat capable.

Now, when forum people think of fluff, they think of things to be skipped and disregarded because it's believed fluff has no influence, except it has as much or even more influence than the mechanics.

Imagine you've entered a village and nobody knows these weird adventurers. They're wary of what you might do and might not be very accommodating. Imagine entering that same village except Clara the Paladin grew up there as a member of the Temple of Chauntea and eventually was blessed by the goddess in front of the villager's eyes. That influenced your party's interaction with the world more than damage did at that moment. Now, the village may want to lodge you, feed you, and offer you services at a discount because Clara is back and she's as generous as she was before.

Another example would be my own personal character being connected to a certain order of Rangers in a region that protected this region. Amongst them was a friend I made who was later captured by an antagonist. If my character didn't have the fluff, she wouldn't have any incentive to help the character in particular and we wouldn't explore the setting as deep as we did.

It isn't necessarily about the numbers but it's about letting your fluff be used in influential ways. I can totally imagine a warlock with a patron gaining information that is valuable and insightful despite not necessarily having a mechanic that gives them +1 to charisma from this knowledge or something.

[JNAProductions]

It's because you're gimping your character narratively out of the campaign, imo.

Imagine someone who came up to your table and their fluff was so wonderful and so connected that the thought of a story with that type of character would be fantastic but the mechanics were unplayable. They couldn't engage in combat if they tried because their character had absolutely nothing there but ribbon features. You'd probably consider them dead-weight and better off staying out of any combat opportunities completely rather than endanger your character or mess up the team's tactics. This can be fine for some but a group eventually wishes that when the combat switch was flipped, all their party members were actually combat capable.

Now, when forum people think of fluff, they think of things to be skipped and disregarded because it's believed fluff has no influence, except it has as much or even more influence than the mechanics.

Imagine you've entered a village and nobody knows these weird adventurers. They're wary of what you might do and might not be very accommodating. Imagine entering that same village except Clara the Paladin grew up there as a member of the Temple of Chauntea and eventually was blessed by the goddess in front of the villager's eyes. That influenced your party's interaction with the world more than damage did at that moment. Now, the village may want to lodge you, feed you, and offer you services at a discount because Clara is back and she's as generous as she was before.

Another example would be my own personal character being connected to a certain order of Rangers in a region that protected this region. Amongst them was a friend I made who was later captured by an antagonist. If my character didn't have the fluff, she wouldn't have any incentive to help the character in particular and we wouldn't explore the setting as deep as we did.

It isn't necessarily about the numbers but it's about letting your fluff be used in influential ways. I can totally imagine a warlock with a patron gaining information that is valuable and insightful despite not necessarily having a mechanic that gives them +1 to charisma from this knowledge or something.

Why does Clara have to be a Paladin?

Couldn't she be a pious Fighter, or Wizard, or Cleric, or literally ANY CLASS?

Fluff isn't irrelevant-but the DEFAULT FLUFF can be 100% irrelevant. You should just have your own to replace it.

[MaxWilson]

Completely disagree. The proficiencies could come from a number of classes; the Curse is hardly "better than Hex" except that it doesn't take Concentration; access not to 'a bunch' but to two spells known (except by scroll, much less useful especially for the two you quoted); and an amount of healing that is absolutely minimal (I assume you mean via Curse? Since you're only dipping that's a max of 6 hit points per enemy that dies that was also Cursed). It's good, yes, I don't dispute that, largely for Charisma synergy. But I really don't think it's overpowered.

Edit: ok, I don't necessarily disagree with the bit about a Lore Bard. But one combination being preferable seems fine. There's still nothing there that makes it bonkers.

Hexblade's Curse also works with spell damage (therefore Magic Missile, which is huge for DPR novaing) and gives you more crits, isn't restricted to Necrotic damage, and scales with proficiency. It's definitely better than Hex.

I said "a bunch of proficiencies" not a bunch of spells. Spell-wise you have a bunch that you wish you could take, but can only take a few. On a Bardlock I'd take Booming Blade, Eldritch Blast, Hex, and Expeditious Retreat. On a Hexvoker I'd take Armor of Agathys, Mold Earth, Booming Blade, and Shield.

Yes, you could get proficiencies from feats or dips in other classes, but it's still a bunch of proficiencies, all of them useful, on top of the spells and curse and spell slot.

Attacking with Cha is pretty much irrelevant to most Hexblades I've seen. Eldritch Blast is typically better than weapons anyway, at Tier 3+.

[Asisreo1]

Why does Clara have to be a Paladin?

Couldn't she be a pious Fighter, or Wizard, or Cleric, or literally ANY CLASS?

Fluff isn't irrelevant-but the DEFAULT FLUFF can be 100% irrelevant. You should just have your own to replace it.
She could've been a cleric, but her powers as a paladin first awakened in front of the villagers during an epidemic. Her Lay on Hands were the first proof of her power and no other class has such a feature, especially at 1st level.

[sithlordnergal]

-snip-

See...I have to disagree with you there. As long as you're actually interacting with the entirety of the story, not just combat, then you're not being gimped.


As for the village...I mean, does it fully matter? You can gain the same effects of the village by befriending people and being kind with a couple of high Persuasion checks and general friendliness. Sure, it'll take a bit longer then having a player already with those benefits...but even if you don't have the benefits there really won't be any major detriments to being unknown in a town. Unless they're actively hostile to new comers, its not really going to cause any problems for you or the party. Same thing with your Ranger friend. The fact that they've been captured by someone you consider an antagonist should be plenty of an incentive to go and save them on its own.

As for having fluff without mechanics to back it up, that sort of thing just bugs me. Just give the warlock a feature that gives them advantage with such checks, now there are mechanics backing it up. As a player I never really expect fluff to give me any mechanical influence, and as a DM I'll give mechanical benefits and detriments to back up a player's fluff. Because without such things I'll likely forget about it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

She could've been a cleric, but her powers as a paladin first awakened in front of the villagers during an epidemic. Her Lay on Hands were the first proof of her power and no other class has such a feature, especially at 1st level.

You know, except for Clerics, and their spellcasting granted by a God... like Chauntea. Oh, but Chauntea is also a goddess of nature and farming. Can't discount Druid as a viable starting class for this character. In fact, most classes aren't too far off either if you're willing to put some work into flavoring the Healer/Inspiring Leader feat.

But if the goal is very specifically to be able to cure disease at level 1, sure, Paladin is the only mechanically viable choice. There's still no real reason you couldn't play a budding Alchemist Artificer who found the right combination of herbs thanks to Chauntea and created a working antidote though.

Believe it or not, you don't actually have to start as a Cleric or Paladin for a God to be like "oh yea, I can help you out with this one. Just do good in my name, maybe this goes further later down the road."

[Asisreo1]

You know, except for Clerics, and their spellcasting granted by a God... like Chauntea. Oh, but Chauntea is also a goddess of nature and farming. Can't discount Druid as a viable starting class for this character. In fact, most classes aren't too far off either if you're willing to put some work into flavoring the Healer/Inspiring Leader feat.

But if the goal is very specifically to be able to cure disease at level 1, sure, Paladin is the only mechanically viable choice. There's still no real reason you couldn't play a budding Alchemist Artificer who found the right combination of herbs thanks to Chauntea and created a working antidote though.

Believe it or not, you don't actually have to start as a Cleric or Paladin for a God to be like "oh yea, I can help you out with this one. Just do good in my name, maybe this goes further later down the road."
The point isn't that a class must have a very specific fluff. The point is that disengaging with the fluff entirely is strictly worse than having a footing in the world.

It really doesn't matter if Clara chose cleric, druid, or artificer. Nor does it matter if she's doing it by the book. The point is that her character isn't just a bunch of walking stats in a party full of people trying to do more than play on calculators all day.

[JNAProductions]

The point isn't that a class must have a very specific fluff. The point is that disengaging with the fluff entirely is strictly worse than having a footing in the world.

It really doesn't matter if Clara chose cleric, druid, or artificer. Nor does it matter if she's doing it by the book. The point is that her character isn't just a bunch of walking stats in a party full of people trying to do more than play on calculators all day.

I don't think anyone here has advocated disengaging from fluff entirely.

It's just that the default fluff can be entirely pointless to any given group.

[sithlordnergal]

The point isn't that a class must have a very specific fluff. The point is that disengaging with the fluff entirely is strictly worse than having a footing in the world.

It really doesn't matter if Clara chose cleric, druid, or artificer. Nor does it matter if she's doing it by the book. The point is that her character isn't just a bunch of walking stats in a party full of people trying to do more than play on calculators all day.

But the stats are what ends up being important. More so then knowing exactly which town you came from. You'll get a footing in the world as you adventure and make a name for yourself by doing quests and jobs. Just saying "I'm a Paladin" is generally enough to work with. Sure, if you want you can add in stuff like "I'm a Paladin from such an such organization, and I was trained by so-and-so" but it isn't needed for anything.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I will say, when I started playing 5E some years ago now (time flies) I had it in my head that you needed justification for things, and in hindsight all it really got me was a bit of ribbing from other players who I "encouraged" to play characters who would justifiably travel with mine and discarded character ideas for things I couldn't justify making work.

I've loosened up considerably since the early days of our groups DND, not having to justify things improved our tables experience. Of course I still prefer for my character to make some amount of thematic sense but I'm not drawing the line in the sand if a mechanic I want to use isn't a 100% fit.

Old me would have balked at the idea that the Paladin I created as my first character could have been retooled into being a Warlock dip while still being the stick in the mud goody two shoes I intended for him to be, but here we are.

[Asisreo1]

But the stats are what ends up being important. More so then knowing exactly which town you came from. You'll get a footing in the world as you adventure and make a name for yourself by doing quests and jobs. Just saying "I'm a Paladin" is generally enough to work with. Sure, if you want you can add in stuff like "I'm a Paladin from such an such organization, and I was trained by so-and-so" but it isn't needed for anything.
It's needed for the engagement of the character and player. I've seen the "I'm a paladin, that's it" character in action. But they weren't a paladin, they were a robot. I could make them sit in the corner and roll dice while repeatedly pressing a "you win!" Button to engage them.

What's the point of playing the same damn character anyways? Not between themselves but between multiple of those same player types. It's always the same character with different names but almost identical stats and since there's no actual fluff involved, they end up being more stereotypical than if they had just played the class T-for-T.

They've gimped themselves because while player 1 & 2 have ties to nobility and player 3 has a criminal contact they frequently visit for easy intel, player 4 is "just a paladin" and doesn't have a church to provide services or a god to pray to. If all players had equal stats, there's only one player that is providing nothing beneficial to the party.

[sithlordnergal]

It's needed for the engagement of the character and player. I've seen the "I'm a paladin, that's it" character in action. But they weren't a paladin, they were a robot. I could make them sit in the corner and roll dice while repeatedly pressing a "you win!" Button to engage them.

What's the point of playing the same damn character anyways? Not between themselves but between multiple of those same player types. It's always the same character with different names but almost identical stats and since there's no actual fluff involved, they end up being more stereotypical than if they had just played the class T-for-T.

They've gimped themselves because while player 1 & 2 have ties to nobility and player 3 has a criminal contact they frequently visit for easy intel, player 4 is "just a paladin" and doesn't have a church to provide services or a god to pray to. If all players had equal stats, there's only one player that is providing nothing beneficial to the party.

I mean, as long as they do engage with the story outside of combat, then the "I'm a Paladin" character is fine. They don't need a super unique or detailed back story to work with the party, or work in the story. And sure, he may not have the ties you described, but again they're not needed. Generally speaking, you can go find a church and try talking to someone. If they're not openly hostile, which why would they be 9 times out of 10, they'll be willing to help out.

As for playing the same character, that only happens if you play the same build over and over. There's a pretty big difference between a Paladin/Sorcerer that went Ancients and Wild Magic and a Paladin/Sorcerer that went Devotion and Divine Soul. One is more of a front line heavy hitter, focusing on nova damage and hoping to fireball the enemy at point blank range, the other is more support.



That said, I think I know why our ideas differ on character creation so much though. I'm willing to bet you play a lot of homebrew games, where as my introduction to 5e, and what I played for a majority of my time, was AL. In Adventures League, your background tends to not matter, unless you're a member of a specific Faction, and generally character fluff gets ignored outside of one or two opening lines to introduce your character. After making your 25th level 1 character, you stop worrying about the fluff and backgrounds.

[OldTrees1]

Now, when forum people think of fluff, they think of things to be skipped and disregarded because it's believed fluff has no influence, except it has as much or even more influence than the mechanics.

-citation needed- :smallbiggrin:

I do not recall a forum where "people think fluff [as] things to be skipped and disregarded". I know several forums that believe fluff is mutable at character creation. Aka the example fluff in the PHB is example fluff, but characters will have fluff especially if it does not match the example fluff.

I will admit the boundary between what is mutable (aka fluff) and what is fixed (aka mechanics) is a fuzzy boundary that is misunderstood*. However that is not the same as skipped / disregarded.

From your elaboration in later posts, it sounds like your criticism is with newer players or with beer & pretzel playstyle rather than "forum people". Breadth and depth of characterization is a learned skill, and some players might start with a shallower character while they learn.

* Two examples. We don't need to spend time on either. They are just here as context.
1) Vancian casting, instead of other casting, impacts the characterization of a mage character. They forget how to cast spells. They run out of magic. They count time in days. This can create dissonance when the character is intended to be characterized as having consistent, continuous & constant magical ability.
2) Can the druid class wear metal armor. It is debated whether that is fluff or mechanics.


That said, I think I know why our ideas differ on character creation so much though. I'm willing to bet you play a lot of homebrew games, where as my introduction to 5e, and what I played for a majority of my time, was AL. In Adventures League, your background tends to not matter, unless you're a member of a specific Faction, and generally character fluff gets ignored outside of one or two opening lines to introduce your character. After making your 25th level 1 character, you stop worrying about the fluff and backgrounds.

Jumping in for a brief comment.

I found present characterization (who are you now), in contrast to past characterization (backstory), could survive and thrive in AL as long as you had a consistent group of players (and the hardcovers being longer modules helped). In one case we had characters like
A professional dungeon guide hireling on contract to a group the PCs impersonated.
A monsterous paladin native to the region that was on a mission to restore the soul trade.
A dwarven priest that sacrificed themselves to possession to move an ancient spirit away from his clan.

[Edea]

...that is another problem, for some reason Hexblade's Curse does not cap how often it applies per round the way most additional damage sources do. It should probably be a damage bonus of half your warlock level (rounded up) applicable once per round.

Also I think Empowered Evocation specifically got hit with the nerf bat? Or was the nerf also badly written enough to introduce arguments?

[cutlery]

...that is another problem, for some reason Hexblade's Curse does not cap how often it applies per round the way most additional damage sources do. It should probably be a damage bonus of half your warlock level (rounded up) applicable once per round.

Also I think Empowered Evocation specifically got hit with the nerf bat? Or was the nerf also badly written enough to introduce arguments?

It only looks like a big damage increase if you're looking at it at 20th level.

At 11th, it's up to 12 extra damage per round with eldritch blast, 8 per round from melee (unless they've invested feats in something like pole arm master).

Once per SR for a minute; it's only too much if they get a SR every combat.

What happened to Empowered Evocation? Last I read it was one application per roll; with the special case that magic missile uses one roll for all darts. Amping up magic missile with empowered evocation is sort of ok but that isn't the scariest 10th level archetype feature.

[Tanarii]

Those are good questions to ask.

PHB Fluff notes that there are multiple kinds of Warlocks. You are speaking of the "a cleric and a deity" model an not acknowledging the "a master and an apprentice" model mentioned 5 lines later (pg 105).

Personally I prefer variations of the former, including unmentioned variations like "Effect of ongoing exposure", but I will acknowledge that 5E expanded the fluff to include learned power rather than only channeled power.

But those are good questions to ask.My questions were directed at both, or rather determining which was appropriate. Many folks think of it as learned or non-revocable granted, but a DM may not agree and want them to be channeled (deity model) or revocable (contract with a devil model).

Many Folks think of the patron as an inactive background element, whereas some want them to be actively affecting table time. That holds for deity models, contract with a devil models, master models, or many others I haven't ever thought of.


And they still didn't really manage to make melee preferable to eldritch blast spam, even with heavy invocation investment, short of the occasional smite (which works just as good at range with improved pact weapon!)
Eldritch Blast requires a feat to be good when an enemy is in combat range of you. Or operating solo and expending resources in your own darkness. It also suffers from allies are cover issues.

I won't disagree that eldritch blast with invocation support is very good. But that's more a factor of range being very powerful in 5e. Especially if you're willing to feat away your limitations, or put up with allies providing cover to enemies and have enough allies to provide protection, or can kite in an open plain.

[OldTrees1]

My questions were directed at both, or rather determining which was appropriate. Many folks think of it as learned or non-revocable granted, but a DM may not agree and want them to be channeled (deity model) or revocable (contract with a devil model).

Many Folks think of the patron as an inactive background element, whereas some want them to be actively affecting table time. That holds for deity models, contract with a devil models, master models, or many others I haven't ever thought of.

Thanks for the elaboration. Those are good questions to ask. Especially if the GM answers "yes" to multiple choice questions*.

*We have had different types of relationship at in the same group (Boss, Root of belief structure, Possessing spirit, Contract)

[McSkrag]

I don't see this as an issue AT ALL.

The prime directive is for everyone to have fun. If a player's going to have more fun with a character because it has a couple levels of Hexblade then I am all for it.

As a DM, it's up to me to make the adventure fun and challenging in and out of combat regardless of character build mechanics.

I also take the view that a character's "class" is whatever concept they come up with for their story. The classes are just the mechanics beneath the story.

If a character wants to be an "Avenging Battlemage" by multiclassing wizard and hexblade then they are an "Avenging Battlemage". The underlying mechanics of the multiclass work together to make that concept.

I do work with players to make their concept and backstory roughly consistent with class mechanics and my campaign world to increase immersion and make the whole experience more fun.