[A Thought] 5e Is Designed Around MAD

[Amechra]

OK, a round of applause for that blindingly obvious insight on my part, I know. But I've been thinking lately, and I think I know why I'm so unhappy with Hex Warrior, but less unhappy with Battle Ready and Shillelagh.

And part of it comes down to the Paladin being designed with MAD in mind (how's that for a non sequitur?).

I think the clearest way to see this is the Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon feature - when you use it, you get to add your Charisma modifier to attack rolls with that weapon. Cool - that's potentially a really powerful feature, since the Paladin expects you to split your stats between Charisma and Strength (or Dexterity, for you Dexadin fans). Now, let's take a look at how high your effective stat bonus is when using Sacred Weapon, assuming that you beeline for those two stats as soon as possible.



Current Tier
Effective Stat
Bonus
ASIs Spent
Attack Bonus



1
+5 - +7
1
+7 - +9


2
+6 - +8
2
+9 - +12


3
+7 - +10
4
+11 - +15


4
+9 - +10
4 (maybe 5)
+15 - +16



Notice how you have to spend at least 4 of your 5 ASIs to max out your Str + Cha, and how you might have to spend all of them if you didn't start with a +3 in both stats? You get similar progressions when you look at the other MAD features in the game, like a Monk's Unarmored Defense, the Bladesinger's Bladesong, or the Pact of the Blade's Lifedrinker.

In a more abstract sense, this applies to classes as well - the Monk's Stunning Strike was designed with the knowledge that you wouldn't have the world's highest Wisdom, which is why you can force that save many times per round. The Paladin's Aura of Protection was designed the way it was to make it trickier to pick between maxing out Strength or Charisma first, so it's far more pushed than it would be if it were a Bard or Sorcerer feature. In general, classes that ask you for two ability scores do more with those ability scores than a class that just asks you for one.

Now let's compare that to what Sacred Weapon looks like with Hex Warrior in tow:



Current Tier

Effective Stat
Bonus

ASIs Spent

Attack Bonus



1
+6 - +8
1
+8 - +10


2
+8 - +10
2
+11 - +14


3
+10
2
+14 - +15


4
+10
2
+16






Look at how efficient that is. Your attack bonus comfortably fits into the range belonging to the next tier up - your effective stat progresses at twice the normal speed for half of the normal progression. Suddenly, that super efficient class feature designed under the expectation that it'd be really hard to use it to its fullest is trivial to optimize for. Sure, not every Paladin has Sacred Weapon, but they all have Aura of Protection - except now you don't have to choose between offense and defense.

Sure, you can build a class so that swapping your stat over to a different one matters less, like with Shillelagh and Battle Ready. But then you have to design all of your classes with that feature in mind. If Hexblade had been core, we would not gotten the Paladin as it currently stands. If the Artificer had been core, the Bladesinger would be considerably less care-free about adding Intelligence to everything. Ultimately, this kind of feature is bad because you have to get it early on for it to matter, which means that it will be accessible to multiclassing.

And, because you can multiclass into it, you can't have classes that pull you two different ways, which drastically shrinks your overall design space.

[OldTrees1]

As usual we have to remember that multiclassing costs levels. Especially in the case of Hex Warrior which is often moved into Blade Pact (3rd level instead of 1st). Spending levels in exchange for a feature that makes your existing features more efficient? That is a common synergy in multiclassing (due in part to being the entire basis of singleclassing).

So the design space does not actually shrink, instead it creates multiple routes. The MAD Paladin is higher level than the SAD Paladin in exchange for the SAD Paladin having gained some increased synergy.

Now, is Warlock 1 the right place for that feature? No, it is commonly moved back to 3rd level. But this can be balanced.

[Blood of Gaea]

Ultimately, this kind of feature is bad because you have to get it early on for it to matter, which means that it will be accessible to multiclassing.
That part isn't necessarily true. If you have reason to put a 16 in Dex or Str normally, you can be quite comfortable with that easily through tier 2 and 4, as long as your AC is taken care of.

A good example of this would be a Hexblade dip on Paladin to become SAD. You already need at least 13 Str, meaning 15 Str for heavy armor is more efficiecnt thant 14 Dex for medium armor. It's not a terrible burden to just start with a 16.

If you have 16 Str, taking Hexblade before getting 18 or 20 Cha doesn't even make a difference for your basic attacks. I'd argue it's not even a huge upgrade until the new stat is at 20, consider that you can delay important features.

[Toadkiller]

So I’m playing a Hexblade, because I wanted to see what all the fuss is about. I have dropped as much into charisma as I could (standard array) naturally. But I need dex for my medium armor, con for HP and am currently at a “cliffhanger” between sessions where I’m kind of screwed because I only have an 8 strength and so I can’t pick up the macguffin and run for it, which is what I need to be able to do for the situation the party is in. So we are going to need to figure out a different solution.

I don’t think the SAD classes are as single attribute focused in real play as they seem when discussed here. With a good DM you are needing all sorts of abilities, which ideally is giving everyone a chance to shine.

[Darthnazrael]

Counterpoint: The MAD monk ("ra ra rasputin") features you mentioned are a big part of what makes that class terrible in practice.

I think SAD is good for the game, I just wish it were more evenly distributed between classes. Hexblade has enough going on for it at level 1 that many builds are happy dipping even if they don't want CHA SAD. The fact that they get that too is big game.

[MrStabby]

Counterpoint: The MAD monk ("ra ra rasputin") features you mentioned are a big part of what makes that class terrible in practice.

I think SAD is good for the game, I just wish it were more evenly distributed between classes. Hexblade has enough going on for it at level 1 that many builds are happy dipping even if they don't want CHA SAD. The fact that they get that too is big game.

I think MAD is good, but as long as you dont roll for stats.

A paladin that maxes charisma is different to one that maxes attack stat. A monk with max wisdom is a little different to one that has max dexterity. Options for what to prioritise are good.

It is also a natural way to balance classes (at its best). Fighter is less good than paladin in terms of power of abilities, but whilst paladin is boosting stats a fighter is picking up more cool feats.

I dont think hexblade is an example of good design.

[Chronos]

Or, to look at it another way, as a dip on a paladin, that one feature from one level of Hexblade is worth at least two and a half ASIs. Plus other features. Yes, of course you lose one level of paladin progression, but two and a half ASIs worth of stats, two cantrips (one of which can be Eldritch Blast), and two spells known, castable once per short rest, is a heck of a lot more than any other single level of any class gives.

[cutlery]

I generally agree; with the caveat that it is a problem for multiclassing more than monoclassing.

The hexblade, by itself, isn't too terrible. The spell selection is small enough, spell slots spare enough, that cha to hit/damage isn't that big a deal. Nicer than other blade pact warlocks, sure, but other blade pact warlocks were clearly behind valor bards and bladesingers.

I'd have made cha to hit/damage have limited uses (like bladesong), or leaned harder into dex (like bladesong). Cha to armor class would have been too much like bladesingers, though, so that was a problem.

Anyway, in a single class environment, particularly when we account for how rare it is to actually get two short rests per long rest, the hexblade is fine.

In a multiclass environment, the hexblade takes one of the worst multiclass offenders and makes it even better. The fact it also happens to key off the most synergistic mental stat makes it even worse (an int hexblade would have been less of an issue; an int hexblade where EB multiple beams wasn't available until warlock level 5 wouldn't have been a problem at all).

However:


There is another, similar underlying problem in 5e: they have made dexterity too good; which is also the SAD problem. Str can now be effectively dumped (along with int) for many, many builds. If they're going to have six stats, they should all matter roughly equally across the different pillars of the game, but we are nowhere near that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Now, is Warlock 1 the right place for that feature? No, it is commonly moved back to 3rd level. But this can be balanced. Bingo.

Counterpoint: The MAD monk ("ra ra rasputin") features you mentioned are a big part of what makes that class terrible in practice. Monks are a fun class with neat features. Terrible? No. Disappointing? Four Elements fits that description.

I think SAD is good for the game I do not. I think that all SAD does is empower Optimizers and Min/Maxers - who are a part of the gaming audience, to be sure, but they are not the whole gaming audience. On the other hand, the Wizard is a bit of a SAD class ...

I dont think hexblade is an example of good design. I'll upvote that.

[Warpiglet-7]

OK, a round of applause for that blindingly obvious insight on my part, I know. But I've been thinking lately, and I think I know why I'm so unhappy with Hex Warrior, but less unhappy with Battle Ready and Shillelagh.

And part of it comes down to the Paladin being designed with MAD in mind (how's that for a non sequitur?).

I think the clearest way to see this is the Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon feature - when you use it, you get to add your Charisma modifier to attack rolls with that weapon. Cool - that's potentially a really powerful feature, since the Paladin expects you to split your stats between Charisma and Strength (or Dexterity, for you Dexadin fans). Now, let's take a look at how high your effective stat bonus is when using Sacred Weapon, assuming that you beeline for those two stats as soon as possible.



Current Tier
Effective Stat
Bonus
ASIs Spent
Attack Bonus



1
+5 - +7
1
+7 - +9


2
+6 - +8
2
+9 - +12


3
+7 - +10
4
+11 - +15


4
+9 - +10
4 (maybe 5)
+15 - +16



Notice how you have to spend at least 4 of your 5 ASIs to max out your Str + Cha, and how you might have to spend all of them if you didn't start with a +3 in both stats? You get similar progressions when you look at the other MAD features in the game, like a Monk's Unarmored Defense, the Bladesinger's Bladesong, or the Pact of the Blade's Lifedrinker.

In a more abstract sense, this applies to classes as well - the Monk's Stunning Strike was designed with the knowledge that you wouldn't have the world's highest Wisdom, which is why you can force that save many times per round. The Paladin's Aura of Protection was designed the way it was to make it trickier to pick between maxing out Strength or Charisma first, so it's far more pushed than it would be if it were a Bard or Sorcerer feature. In general, classes that ask you for two ability scores do more with those ability scores than a class that just asks you for one.

Now let's compare that to what Sacred Weapon looks like with Hex Warrior in tow:



Current Tier

Effective Stat
Bonus

ASIs Spent

Attack Bonus



1
+6 - +8
1
+8 - +10


2
+8 - +10
2
+11 - +14


3
+10
2
+14 - +15


4
+10
2
+16






Look at how efficient that is. Your attack bonus comfortably fits into the range belonging to the next tier up - your effective stat progresses at twice the normal speed for half of the normal progression. Suddenly, that super efficient class feature designed under the expectation that it'd be really hard to use it to its fullest is trivial to optimize for. Sure, not every Paladin has Sacred Weapon, but they all have Aura of Protection - except now you don't have to choose between offense and defense.

Sure, you can build a class so that swapping your stat over to a different one matters less, like with Shillelagh and Battle Ready. But then you have to design all of your classes with that feature in mind. If Hexblade had been core, we would not gotten the Paladin as it currently stands. If the Artificer had been core, the Bladesinger would be considerably less care-free about adding Intelligence to everything. Ultimately, this kind of feature is bad because you have to get it early on for it to matter, which means that it will be accessible to multiclassing.

And, because you can multiclass into it, you can't have classes that pull you two different ways, which drastically shrinks your overall design space.


I think that making 5e ‘easier’ for characters is not desirable. In short look at complaints about training wheels and CR and well, everything.

They are not coming from people who are playing unoptimized characters. Rather, this is coming from our tricked out hexadins with hexblade dips. People complaining about it being easy are running wild with GWM and SS.

I am glad when we have to choose. I think MAD makes for more choices and more balance (not with other PCs per we) but with challenges for the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do not. I think that all SAD does is empower Optimizers and Min/Maxers - who are a part of the gaming audience, to be sure, but they are not the whole gaming audience. On the other hand, the Wizard is a bit of a SAD class ...


I agree. SAD also encourages having strong differences between things--you're great at some things and crappy at others, instead of being more well-rounded. MAD, for better or worse, encourages being ok at a range of things.

And wizards really do want DEX as well as INT. Plus a decent amount of CON, but everyone wants that. Because a d6 HD and only mage armor means you can use all the AC and HP you can get. That leaves them just as MAD as a "standard" paladin, who wants STR/CHA or a "standard" monk who wants DEX/WIS.

Basically, it seems like classes are designed around wanting two stats + CON. Generally an attack stat and a defense stat, or an attack stat and a secondary class stat. Except the fighter and rogue, who can combine the two. They don't generally have to max both (or really either) stat, but certainly at the +2 range in their weaker by mid-T2.

Barbarian: STR + DEX
Bard: CHA + DEX
Cleric: WIS + STR|DEX
Druid: WIS + DEX. Yes, even Moon druids. Because they don't spend their entire life in wildshape.
Fighter: STR|DEX, +INT if EK
Monk: DEX + WIS
Ranger: DEX + WIS
Rogue: DEX, +INT if AT
Sorcerer: CHA + DEX
Warlock: CHA + DEX (yes, even hexblades need armor, so they're going to need at least +2 DEX)
Wizards: INT + DEX

[OldTrees1]

I agree. SAD also encourages having strong differences between things--you're great at some things and crappy at others, instead of being more well-rounded. MAD, for better or worse, encourages being ok at a range of things.

To be fair, Bard and Rogue both have reasons to exists despite different approaches to proficiency. You can handle both the jack of all trades and the master of few. Single attribute specialized characters can exist alongside characters dabbling in many attributes. I think it is good to encourage both.

This is also why the preferred structure is one that generally only needs 1-2 abilities, but is rewarded proportionally for investment in other abilities.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, Bard and Rogue both have reasons to exists despite different approaches to proficiency. You can handle both the jack of all trades and the master of few. Single attribute specialized characters can exist alongside characters dabbling in many attributes. I think it is good to encourage both.

This is also why the preferred structure is one that generally only needs 1-2 abilities, but is rewarded proportionally for investment in other abilities.

Bards: ok at everything, can be excellent at specific things.
Rogues: can either shore up a strong weakness (ie good at tertiary-stat things) or be exceptionally superb at strengths.

But for most people, the whole "I put all my points into CHA and dumped INT and STR" thing (or any other combination) means that they feel as if they can't contribute elsewhere. Having the class push them (via attribute dependencies) to being more well-rounded is a good thing. Sure, unlike the bard and rogue they're more likely to have deficiencies (ie be only ok, not great) at a bunch of things. But I've found that psychologically, people take negative modifiers as "can't do that at all." It's why I recommend using racial bonuses or proficiencies to shore up those weaknesses in at least one sub-area--having something you can do socially (cha), physically (ie something dex or str related), and exploration (usually wis/int) means you can participate, even if you can't solve everything yourself, in each area.

No classes that I know of need more than 2 non-CON abilities. Everyone else (but fighters and rogues) need 2. Everyone needs CON.

[Cybren]

I don't think 5e is "designed around MAD", I think 5e was designed so that every ability score mattered at least a little to every character and only partly succeeded.

To be honest, I wish ability scores were more important because of their intrinsic functions and less because of class features that reference them.

[BRC]

I agree. SAD also encourages having strong differences between things--you're great at some things and crappy at others, instead of being more well-rounded. MAD, for better or worse, encourages being ok at a range of things.

And wizards really do want DEX as well as INT. Plus a decent amount of CON, but everyone wants that. Because a d6 HD and only mage armor means you can use all the AC and HP you can get. That leaves them just as MAD as a "standard" paladin, who wants STR/CHA or a "standard" monk who wants DEX/WIS.

Basically, it seems like classes are designed around wanting two stats + CON. Generally an attack stat and a defense stat, or an attack stat and a secondary class stat. Except the fighter and rogue, who can combine the two. They don't generally have to max both (or really either) stat, but certainly at the +2 range in their weaker by mid-T2.

Barbarian: STR + DEX
Bard: CHA + DEX
Cleric: WIS + STR|DEX
Druid: WIS + DEX. Yes, even Moon druids. Because they don't spend their entire life in wildshape.
Fighter: STR|DEX, +INT if EK
Monk: DEX + WIS
Ranger: DEX + WIS
Rogue: DEX, +INT if AT
Sorcerer: CHA + DEX
Warlock: CHA + DEX (yes, even hexblades need armor, so they're going to need at least +2 DEX)
Wizards: INT + DEX

The difference is classes with an Implicit Secondary vs Explicit Secondary.


A Wizard has an explicit Primary stat of Intelligence, it's written right into their rules that a wizard gets more powerful as their Int goes up.

Dexterity is an Implicit Secondary. Nowhere in the wizard class rules does it say you want a good dex score, but you very much do. Your low health and naturally low AC mean you need a good dexterity score to avoid going down. Dex is ALSO one of the most useful saves against AoE effects, which a lot of big scary "Deal a pile of hit point damage" effects fall into.

You may notice, basically everybody on your list has Dex as a secondary for the above reasons, but I'd argue that it's more important for some classes than for others.
Like, Dex is a secondary stat for a barbarian, but I'd argue that, unlike a wizard, a Barbarian could focus solely on Str+Con. They only benefit from +2 Dex anyway (Although that's often where secondary stats end up), and have enough hit points that they can often just tank through enemy hits or dex saves. Fighters can dump con completely, getting minimal benefit from it, and just tank Fireballs when needed.
Dex is secondary for both Wizards and Barbarians, but Wizards need it more.

Of course, everybody gets SOME benefits from high stats elsewhere (Skill points, saves), but Fighters and Rogues are the two classes that can pretty safely only care about their primary stat, and Constitution.

Coincidentally, those are the two classes that have a subclass that adds a third stat (Int).

Paladins can dump Dex for the same reason as Fighters. Monks and Rangers can dump Str for the same reason Rogues can, and all three classes have built-in secondary stats to bring them up to the standard "You care about having three stats"


The one class that I think can get away with being truly SAD would be a Moon Druid, who can counteract a less-than-optimal CON score by turning into Bears.

The awkward thing is that the Explicit Secondary classes, monks, rangers, and Paladins feel a little worse for not having their secondary stat boosted up. All classes can get away with something like 20 Primary, 14 secondary, 14 Con IMO, but since the secondary stat is written into your class, the pressure is there to raise it. If you're, say, a Ranger, and you cast Entangle, on that turn you're a mediocre caster, so having only a 14 in wis feels worse than being a Wizard with 14 in dex, even though I'd argue that a wizard needs Dex about as much as a Ranger needs Wis.

[Chronos]

On the other hand, there are a lot of great ranger spells that don't depend on casting stat, or depend on it only minimally. Hunter's Mark, Goodberry, Pass Without Trace, and Conjure Animals don't need wis at all, for instance, and Spike Growth and Wind Wall depend on it only slightly (in some cases your spell save DC matters, but they're still good spells even without those parts). In fact, I think the only spell my ranger ever used where Wis really made any difference at all was Ensnaring Strike.

[Amechra]

That part isn't necessarily true. If you have reason to put a 16 in Dex or Str normally, you can be quite comfortable with that easily through tier 2 and 4, as long as your AC is taken care of.

A good example of this would be a Hexblade dip on Paladin to become SAD. You already need at least 13 Str, meaning 15 Str for heavy armor is more efficiecnt thant 14 Dex for medium armor. It's not a terrible burden to just start with a 16.

If you have 16 Str, taking Hexblade before getting 18 or 20 Cha doesn't even make a difference for your basic attacks. I'd argue it's not even a huge upgrade until the new stat is at 20, consider that you can delay important features.

The thing is that, outside of a game where you generate your stats through point-buy (or where you rolled really well), starting with a 15+ in a stat has really big opportunity cost.

Plus, the whole point of this is that the Paladin was designed around not having the same stat for its basic attacks and stuff like auras. Even if you started with Strength 16 and Charisma 16, picking up +2 Charisma means you attack like you have Strength 18 while simultaneously offering aura benefits as if you had Charisma 18. You've almost doubled the value behind your ASIs.


So I’m playing a Hexblade, because I wanted to see what all the fuss is about. I have dropped as much into charisma as I could (standard array) naturally. But I need dex for my medium armor, con for HP and am currently at a “cliffhanger” between sessions where I’m kind of screwed because I only have an 8 strength and so I can’t pick up the macguffin and run for it, which is what I need to be able to do for the situation the party is in. So we are going to need to figure out a different solution.

I don’t think the SAD classes are as single attribute focused in real play as they seem when discussed here. With a good DM you are needing all sorts of abilities, which ideally is giving everyone a chance to shine.

Part of the reason I focused on how the Hexblade breaks the Paladin is because a single-classed Hexblade doesn't show off its full strength until Tier 3 (where you have more flexibility with your ASIs). Paladin shows off the effects earlier on since it actually gets features that add your Charisma to stuff during Tier 2 (or 1, if you're a Devotion Paladin).

Basically, you can't really see what all the fuss is about unless you multiclass out into Paladin almost immediately, because part of the thing about Hexblade is how absurdly well it multiclasses.


Or, to look at it another way, as a dip on a paladin, that one feature from one level of Hexblade is worth at least two and a half ASIs. Plus other features. Yes, of course you lose one level of paladin progression, but two and a half ASIs worth of stats, two cantrips (one of which can be Eldritch Blast), and two spells known, castable once per short rest, is a heck of a lot more than any other single level of any class gives.

Well, that's much more succinct than whatever I wrote :p.


There is another, similar underlying problem in 5e: they have made dexterity too good; which is also the SAD problem. Str can now be effectively dumped (along with int) for many, many builds. If they're going to have six stats, they should all matter roughly equally across the different pillars of the game, but we are nowhere near that.

I think it goes beyond just Dexterity - both Constitution and Dexterity are going to be at least your secondary stats. Constitution needs to be high because it's the only good way to increase your HP (since your get Level * Con Mod HP), so dumping Constitution is like slapping a sign on your character saying "dead meat". Dexterity has the additional issue that, outside of two races, Barkskin, and heavy armor proficiency, everyone bases their AC of off Dexterity. And dumping AC is going to generally be a recipe for disaster.

If alternate ways of calculating your AC were a bit more common, then there'd be less of a pressure to make every non-heavy characters into fit gymnasts. And, as a result, you'd see more people with, say, a first (or second) mental stat.

[Chugger]

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. I actually have a silver dragonborn devo paladin - made him for Curse of Strahd in Adeventurer's League. It was a lot of fun, but I wasn't very happy at lvl 4 and 5 because I'd put my cha to 18 - I leveled to 5 in pal to get two attacks - but at six I did my one-dip in Hexblade - and now I used an 18 for attacks - I was happy. The best part - there was a

SPOILER for curse of Strahd below!



silver dragon ghost! He was my patron. The usual attack against a pal taking a 1 dip in hex is that it "makes no sense". But I determined this silver dragon was one of my distant ancestors, and because Barovia is so warped, the only kind of patron he could be (he wants revenge on Strahd) is hexblade. I was happy w/ it, so was the DM.

Holy crap at lvl 9 I had a +5 aura, and +5 to hit and damage - and I had the sun sword!

Anyway, kept playing this pal after Strahd, and he's a ton of fun. I almost never use the magic weapon devo pal feature you mention - it uses up an action - terrible in the action economy of 5e - I do turn undead (which is why I picked devo - I knew there'd be a lot of undead in CoS).

So I think the 1 dip in hex works very well - possibly too well. Is this why you're using words like "broken"?

Otherwise, once I'd gotten out of CoS - if hexblade didn't exist - I'd have just sought a belt of hill giant strength had I kept my str at 16 - a +5 aura is really nice. It would have been hard, but w/ a +2 sword not really.

If I run another Pal in AL I can use a DM award and just give him Gauntlets of Ogre Power. And try to get a belt of giant str later.

Anyway, I'm having fun w/ this pal. I don't understand what you think is "broken"? You seem to be saying it's not good to 1 dip hex - and I could see "it's too good" being a problem. But a Pal willing to boost his/her aura really does help the party - a _lot_.

[OldTrees1]

I don't understand what you think is "broken"? You seem to be saying it's not good to 1 dip hex - and I could see "it's too good" being a problem. But a Pal willing to boost his/her aura really does help the party - a _lot_.

Broken is a term to describe something sufficiently imbalanced in either direction. In this case the first level of Hexblade is estimated to be "too good". A common opinion is to move the +cha to attack effect into Blade Pact at 3rd level Warlock. Imagine your character was a Paladin 6 / Warlock 3. That would still be worth it without being "too good".

Oh, and a Paladin focusing on Cha as their primary is quite common. That +5 Aura is really nice.

PS: You can make a spoiler with the "SPOIL" button or with
quote this post to see how

[rlc]

There should be more martial archetypes with class features based on their physical stats.
I'm not saying that eldritch knights should've been casting wizard spells with their strength modifier, because it still doesn't make much sense, but the argument that it's overpowered went out the window when they introduced the hex warrior, because they could've balanced around that.

[Xervous]

The combination of the d20 with bounded accuracy means that most ability scores have the same low value in a vacuum for the standard monkeys on typewriters skill checks.

Look to combat and we see STR double dipping on effectiveness. Not only does it boost the success rate of the attack, it also scales the degree of success. It’s when you see class features adding additional modes of scaling and impact that you get the runaway returns that encourage Always Ever main stat and the heavy racial preferences that nab you the required stats.

If more things had degrees of success baked in there might be a modest shift in priorities. For instance failing the save vs a specific WIS spell by 10 or more meant you didn’t get recurring saves to break free. Now players are encouraged to aim for a baseline to avoid extreme peril, or they can dump the stat and gamble on not encountering the effect.

[cutlery]

There should be more martial archetypes with class features based on their physical stats.
I'm not saying that eldritch knights should've been casting wizard spells with their strength modifier, because it still doesn't make much sense, but the argument that it's overpowered went out the window when they introduced the hex warrior, because they could've balanced around that.

An EK casting EK spells with strength or dex would have still been less busted than hex warrior; as they have limited slots, limited levels, and restricted schools.

It wouldn't have made much sense, of course, but it wouldn't be as bad for the overall MADness of the system.

[rlc]

An EK casting EK spells with strength or dex would have still been less busted than hex warrior; as they have limited slots, limited levels, and restricted schools.

It wouldn't have made much sense, of course, but it wouldn't be as bad for the overall MADness of the system.

Right, but a common argument that was used at the beginning of this edition's life was that using physical stats to cast spells would be overpowered, because you would be using one stat for everything.
And then we got a warlock that uses one stat for everything.

[cutlery]

Right, but a common argument that was used at the beginning of this edition's life was that using physical stats to cast spells would be overpowered, because you would be using one stat for everything.
And then we got a warlock that uses one stat for everything.

Yep.

I still don't think it is that bad if that warlock only ever took warlock levels (as it is stuff like GWM+PAM that makes it a high-damage option; and even then not one that gets truly bonkers until advantage is reliable around 17), but in a multiclassing environment it's really bad (especially if one level dip turns it on!).

If it were Intelligence instead of Cha, it would also be not as bad.

[Witty Username]

5e is designed around MAD? No I don't think so, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid all can function reasonably on 1 ability score as can fighters and barbarians.
Is Paladin designed around MAD? Maybe, even hexblade paladins have issues if they neglect str(need 15 for that plate armor if you are not on a horse), but also hurt if the neglect cha (saving throws and spell DC's).

More directly on hexblade, I am more frustrated that it is the best warlock (their are zero builds of warlock that don't benefit from a pact other than hexblade mostly because medium armor and shields give durability that other warlocks don't have access to for no opportunity cost), not because it breaks design principles of other classes.