Hexblade melee damage vs Eldritch blast (calculation)

[Selion]

I mean, warlocks are strange beasts, eldritch blast is such a great single damage spell that any build that doesn't resolve on it needs to be optimized just to compete with something that you get naturally.
I'm not saying hexblades are bad, they are actually the best subclass for warlocks in terms of damage and defense, my point is: why don't hexblades just go for eldritch blast? (and another pact)

I'm going for a number comparison, i'm assuming a base 16 cha and comparing the damage of eldritch blast with melee dmg with the most common builds. I'll use levels 2 - 8 - 12 - 17 as tier representatives.
I'm also considering the hexblade curse active the first round (so a bonus action already used)

level 2:
Hexblade curse, agonizing blast
eldritch blast -> 10.5
great sword -> 12

Great sword is slightly better, EB is a ranged option, which is usually good, but comes with a invocation investment

level 8:
Hexblade curse for both
EB: agonizing blast, double ASI in cha
melee: thirsting blade, double ASI (GMW at this level is worst even against AC 10)

eldritch blast (2 rays)-> 27
Great sword (2 attacks)-> 30

Same thing as tier 1, same invocations investment here

level 12
Hexblade curse for both
EB: agonizing blast, double ASI in cha
melee: thirsting blade, double ASI, lifedrinker, GMW

eldritch blast (3 rays)-> 43.5
Great sword (2 attacks)-> 42 (without GMW)

I estimated the benefit of GMW using this calculator https://donjon.bin.sh/d20/power/ (I haven't found anything relevant only for 5e)
Surprisingly, even with a attack bonus of +9 , attacking without GMW is counterproductive. Things may change with advantage, but the online calculator doesn't help here.
lets use a dummy AC 15, with advantage.

https://anydice.com/
+9 attack against AC 15 with advantage has a 97% rate of success
average damage for a single greatsword hit is: 0.97 *21 + 0.1*21 (to take account of critical hits)= 22.47
Success rate for a +4 attack with advantage is 75%
average damage for a single greatword hit is: (0.75*31 + 0.1*31) = 26.35
single EB ray 14.5 * 0.97 + 0.1*14.5= 15.5


So assuming advantage against a AC 15 target and 19-20 crit x2
Eldritch blast -> 46.5
Great sword (without GMW) -> 45
great sword (with GMW) -> 52.7

As you can see, melee damage is better just with advantage and with a huge investment in feats and invocations. Furthermore going melee require an additional investment to keep concentration on spells, and the disadvantage of ranged attack in melee can be bypassed with a single feat investment.

Things get worst at higher levels, though

level 17
EB (4 rays) -> 66
Great Sword (2 attacks)-> 46

Let's evaluate advantage against AC 17


https://anydice.com/
+11 attack against AC 17 with advantage has a 97% rate of success
average damage for a single greatsword hit is: 0.97 *23 + 0.1*23 (to take account of critical hits)= 24.61
Success rate for a +6 attack with advantage is 75%
average damage for a single greatword hit is: (0.75*33 + 0.1*33) = 28.05
Single EB ray 16.5 * 0.97 + 0.1*16.5= 17.655

So assuming advantage against a AC 17 target and 19-20 crit x2
Eldritch blast -> 70.62
Great sword (without GMW) -> 49.22
great sword (with GMW) -> 56.1



CONCLUSION
While remaining competitive, the use of a melee weapon falls off leveling up in respect to eldritch blast. GMW mitigates the difference only in condition of advantage or against very low AC opponents.
One could argue that melee characters have more reliable means to get advantage (especially if your DM uses flanking rules), and that polearm master could eventually outdamage (slightly) even 4 rays, but even so I find that the options are at least comparable with less investment on eldritch blast and the additional benefit of repositioning enemies.

So why don't hexblade go for other pacts, using EB with hexblade curse for damage? It's not something i usually see in guides.
Or I'm horribly wrong at some points in my calculations?

Edit: i just noticed that i haven't used the advantage to calculate critical hits, which would be slightly in favor of GMW (around 3 points of average damage per attack)

[MoiMagnus]

You forgot magical weapons.
You at least get a +1 weapon from Improved pact weapon even if you GM never give any of them, but you can get much better, and items that increase EB tend to be much less common in loot tables.
[Note that IPW also allows you to use a bow, but that's probably strictly worst than EB]
Either raw damage boost (like Flame Tonge), or a +2 or +3 weapon that would make GWM interesting much earlier.

(Also, if you fight under spells like Bless or Haste thanks to an ally, the balance also change)

Lastly, to have played a ranged Hexblade recently, the limit of 30ft for the Hexblade curse is a significant limitation. You need to be able to survive melee fight anyway.

EDIT: And I almost forgot that banishing smite is in your spell list. This spell is brutal.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Also, any Hexblade is going to take Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade.

Booming is going to add 1d8 at level 5+, 2d8 at level 11+ and 3d8 at level 17+.

So just looking at level 17 in simple terms of a 20 Cha and no outside influence.

EB is 4 attacks at +11 for 1d10+5 each. Max of 60, Average of 44

Pact of Blade with Booming is one attack at +12 for at best 2d6+3d8+11 with another potential 4d8. Max of 47(79) Average of 34(54)
OR
Pact of the Blade is 2 attacks at +12 for 2d6+11. Max of 46, Average of 38

So EB is a little bit better, but not significantly so. And this is a Role playing game, your character concept might not want to be shooting lasers, or force arrows or whatever flavor you add.

[LudicSavant]

Or I'm horribly wrong at some points in my calculations? There are additional variables that should be considered, like Eldritch Smite critfishing, IPW, Booming Blade, spell buffs, etc.

Also, does that Donjon calculator account for things like the GWM bonus action on crit?


So why don't hexblade go for other pacts, using EB with hexblade curse for damage? It's not something i usually see in guides.

It's not uncommon for Hexblades to go for other pacts than just Pact of the Blade.

[Hael]

You haven’t optimized. A pamlock with a halberd at lvl 17 is going to be well over 100 dpr against ac19 and is one of the highest damage strikers in the entire game. Completely blowing away what a blast lock can do (and they hit hard). This is competitive and even surpassing warriors and barbarians.

I don’t know where you went wrong but if you use your invocations you should have something like 1d10 + 17 +2d8 with permanent triple advantage (foresight), a +5/-10, a +1 to hit, and 3 attacks with a 19 crit range as well as a minion with ~8 or 9 dpr a round or so, and a reaction that allows you to use booming blade.
And we haven’t even used eldritch smite or a summon (which will send the damage into the stratosphere)

[quindraco]

You haven’t optimized. A pamlock with a halberd at lvl 17 is going to be well over 100 dpr against ac19 and is one of the highest damage strikers in the entire game. Completely blowing away what a blast lock can do (and they hit hard). This is competitive and even surpassing warriors and barbarians.

I don’t know where you went wrong but if you use your invocations you should have something like 1d10 + 17 +2d8 with permanent triple advantage (foresight), a +5/-10, a +1 to hit, and 3 attacks with a 19 crit range as well as a minion with ~8 or 9 dpr a round or so, and a reaction that allows you to use booming blade.
And we haven’t even used eldritch smite or a summon (which will send the damage into the stratosphere)

Booming Blade with a reaction sounds like War Caster, but War Caster must only target the AoO trigger, and Booming Blade is an AOE: it targets both its own point of origin and the spell's listed "target" in the text. It's a violation of the RAW to let War Caster work with Booming Blade.

Here's the most optimal way I know how to work it:

PAM+GWM is 2 strikes at 1d10 and a third strike at 1d4, upping to 1d10 if one of the first two critted. All are at +5 (Charisma) +1 (Improved Pact Weapon) +5 (Lifedrinker; necrotic, which is easier to resist than force) + 1d6 (Hex, which has no excuse to stop being up). Super advantage comes from Foresight + Any Elf or Half-Elf + Elven Accuracy. If you include Hexblade's Curse at high levels, that's another +6, getting you the +17. But the +2d8 without using Eldritch Smite, which would be 6d8 4x per short rest... I don't know where that comes from.

[Hael]

Booming Blade with a reaction sounds like War Caster, but War Caster must only target the AoO trigger, and Booming Blade is an AOE: it targets both its own point of origin and the spell's listed "target" in the text. It's a violation of the RAW to let War Caster work with Booming Blade.

PAM+GWM is 2 strikes at 1d10 and a third strike at 1d4, upping to 1d10 if one of the first two critted. All are at +5 (Charisma) +1 (Improved Pact Weapon) +5 (Lifedrinker; necrotic, which is easier to resist than force) + 1d6 (Hex, which has no excuse to stop being up). Super advantage comes from Foresight + Any Elf or Half-Elf + Elven Accuracy. If you include Hexblade's Curse at high levels, that's another +6, getting you the +17. But the +2d8 without using Eldritch Smite, which would be 6d8 4x per short rest... I don't know where that comes from.

2d8 is spirit shroud (better than hex in melee somewhere in tier2 when slots upgrade). So 1d10 + 17 + 2d8 for 2 attacks, then the 1d4 + 17 +2d8 bonus. With foresight, EA, GWM and 19 crit range hitting at +12 against ac19, with 10/-5 I get (using ludics calculator) ~114dpr. Feel free to check me.

For Eldritch blast, I get (1d10 +1d6 + 11) *4 at 11 to hit against ac 19 I get 77dpr, where I use hex instead of SS for range. I could take a few more invocations here to slightly bump the damage (see maddening hex etc).

As far as warcaster and BB. I don't think I agree. See this article
https://thinkdm.org/2020/11/14/blade-cantrips/

Although in practice you'll typically trigger a PAM reaction instead of a standard OA, and that can't use Warcaster b/c of range.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Booming Blade with a reaction sounds like War Caster, but War Caster must only target the AoO trigger, and Booming Blade is an AOE: it targets both its own point of origin and the spell's listed "target" in the text. It's a violation of the RAW to let War Caster work with Booming Blade.

A spell having a range of self doesn't automatically make you a target of the spell, it works just fine with War Caster.

[Hael]

Regarding the initial premise (why use EB instead of hexblade melee). As we can see, one bumps the damage a not insignificant amount by going the melee route (starting off low but ending around a 50% bump). However, that required a very large ASI/Feat investment, multiple invocations and many levels of warlock to attain. So is it really worth it from a pure optimization standpoint? Probably not!

The better framing is why does only 2 levels of warlock, get you a cantrip that provides scaling damage that isnt far away from what a warrior can do, as well as a nice cc effect. For instance a samurai warriors DPR with action surge and a great sword is ~136 dpr on round 1, and ~68dpr on round 2, which means in a long fight the blastlock is going to start approaching the total damage (break even somewhere around round 5 or 6). Thats 20 levels of fighter for what again?

So I would say the bigger problem isnt with hexblade melee damage. Its with the busted EB mechanic.

[Frogreaver]

2d8 is spirit shroud (better than hex in melee somewhere in tier2 when slots upgrade). So 1d10 + 17 + 2d8 for 2 attacks, then the 1d4 + 17 +2d8 bonus. With foresight, EA, GWM and 19 crit range hitting at +12 against ac19, with 10/-5 I get (using ludics calculator) ~114dpr. Feel free to check me.

For Eldritch blast, I get (1d10 +1d6 + 11) *4 at 11 to hit against ac 19 I get 77dpr, where I use hex instead of SS for range. I could take a few more invocations here to slightly bump the damage (see maddening hex etc).

As far as warcaster and BB. I don't think I agree. See this article
https://thinkdm.org/2020/11/14/blade-cantrips/

Although in practice you'll typically trigger a PAM reaction instead of a standard OA, and that can't use Warcaster b/c of range.

Against AC 19 I get 86.3 DPR for a EB user with foresight, EA, 19 crit range, hex, hexblades curse and hitting at +11 against ac 19.

I'm only getting 91ish DPR for Polearm using Warlock with your numbers listed above (will be slightly above as I didn't account for the chance you might do 3 more damage due to GWM allowing you to swing with the d10 weapon instead of the d4 from PAM). Are you factoring in the reaction attack for PAM?

*Nevermind, I get 117.3 I didn't add in the +10 from GWM as first take was that the +17 included that.

[Hael]

Against AC 19 I get 86.3 DPR for a EB user with foresight, EA, 19 crit range, hex, hexblades curse and hitting at +11 against ac 19.

Indeed I likely left out EA (which is a pretty big dpr boost with crit range and advantage)

[Selion]

So I would say the bigger problem isnt with hexblade melee damage. Its with the busted EB mechanic.

Y, they should have fixed the pact of the blade with cha to attack and damage (at level 3) and make the hexblade curse scaling with levels (for example, crit for 19-20 at level 6). I'm building an hexblade and it's extremely tempting multiclassing into bard or sorcerer at level 2, i won't do that just because i don't want to profit from bad design.

[diplomancer]

Y, they should have fixed the pact of the blade with cha to attack and damage (at level 3) and make the hexblade curse scaling with levels (for example, crit for 19-20 at level 6). I'm building an hexblade and it's extremely tempting multiclassing into bard or sorcerer at level 2, i won't do that just because i don't want to profit from bad design.

You are right, in a way; Hexblade frontloadedness IS a problem; but I wouldn't say people take two levels of Hexblade and then go into Sorcerer, Paladin, Bard, Wizard, etc, because they wanted to be a Warlock and suddenly realized they already have enough and can go on with other classes; they do that because they want, from the beginning, to BE those other classes, and just went to Hexblade because of its frontloaded mechanical benefits.

Therefore, when you are evaluating the problem of its "frontloadedness", the proper comparison is not between, say, an Hexblade 2, Sorcerer X vs. an Hexblade X+2, but between the first build and Sorcerer X+2.
Those who just want to play a single classed Warlock may very well pick other patrons (which can indeed compete with Hexblades on later levels).

[Keravath]

There are a couple of elements you have left out.

With enough investment in feats etc, a melee hexblade easily does more damage that AB.

1) Warlocks are one of the few classes with easy ways to generate advantage on every attack roll. Until level 7 this is darkness+devils sight and after level 7 it is shadow of moil. These are better choices typically that effects which increase damage like hex or spirit shroud since they increase damage by increasing hits AND substantially increase defence.

2) You mention GWM but leave out PAM. A variant human starting with PAM will have a bonus action additional attack which easily outdamages AB through tier 3 after Lifedrinker.

3) Improved pact weapon increases both to hit and a slight damage increase - never mind the possibility of other magical weapons.

However, the melee hexblade requires a significant investment in feats and invocations that AB just doesn't need.

P.S. Eldritch Smite is a bit of a trap invocation at least until tier 3 just due to the small number of spell slots a warlock has available and the other, far more important uses, that a blade pact warlock will use them for.

AB requires one invocation.

A good melee hexblade needs ... PAM, CHA x 2 (eventually), resilient con (melee characters DO get hit and it is crucial that a melee hexblade maximize chances to maintain concentration since they don't have many spell slots), and possibly GWM - which when combined with always on advantage can be a viable alternative in many cases. (By the way - a rule of thumb for most weapons is if your number to roll to hit is 11 or less then using GWM will work out to be the same or greater average damage - but the number goes down the more damage you can do in one hit)

They also need Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker and would like Improved Pact Weapon and Devils Sight (at least until level 7).

[Frogreaver]

There are a couple of elements you have left out.

With enough investment in feats etc, a melee hexblade easily does more damage that AB.

1) Warlocks are one of the few classes with easy ways to generate advantage on every attack roll. Until level 7 this is darkness+devils sight and after level 7 it is shadow of moil. These are better choices typically that effects which increase damage like hex or spirit shroud since they increase damage by increasing hits AND substantially increase defence.

2) You mention GWM but leave out PAM. A variant human starting with PAM will have a bonus action additional attack which easily outdamages AB through tier 3 after Lifedrinker.

3) Improved pact weapon increases both to hit and a slight damage increase - never mind the possibility of other magical weapons.

However, the melee hexblade requires a significant investment in feats and invocations that AB just doesn't need.

P.S. Eldritch Smite is a bit of a trap invocation at least until tier 3 just due to the small number of spell slots a warlock has available and the other, far more important uses, that a blade pact warlock will use them for.

AB requires one invocation.

A good melee hexblade needs ... PAM, CHA x 2 (eventually), resilient con (melee characters DO get hit and it is crucial that a melee hexblade maximize chances to maintain concentration since they don't have many spell slots), and possibly GWM - which when combined with always on advantage can be a viable alternative in many cases. (By the way - a rule of thumb for most weapons is if your number to roll to hit is 11 or less then using GWM will work out to be the same or greater average damage - but the number goes down the more damage you can do in one hit)

They also need Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker and would like Improved Pact Weapon and Devils Sight (at least until level 7).

I really caution against the darkness approach. You have a party, while darkness while in melee impacts their ability to target/damage enemies.

Shadow of Moil is Nice but it's quickly going to be outclassed by Spirit Shroud in 2 levels which also makes delaying GWM bearable.

I would say that a melee warlock tends to do more damage through most of the game. Let's say you start half elf with 17 charisma.

Level 4 = PAM
Level 8 = Resilient Con (desired to help keep buffs up in combat)
Level 12 = EA
Level 16 = GWM
Level 19 = +2 CHA

[LudicSavant]

I really caution against the darkness approach. You have a party, while darkness while in melee impacts their ability to target/damage enemies.

Darkness, Fog Cloud, and indeed all vision blockers only really negatively impact your party if you misuse them.

It's little different than cases like, say, the guy who can't figure out how to use Fireball without hitting their party.

Used well, it benefits your party, rather than other way around.

[Frogreaver]

Darkness only really negatively impacts your party if you misuse it.

It's little different than cases like, say, the guy who can't figure out how to use Fireball without hitting their party.

Used well, it can benefit your party, rather than other way around.

Totally disagree. Fireball isn't concentration. It doesn't follow you around while you have to be in melee range to hit the enemy. Not fireballing the party is easy as it's a one time check that the enemies have no say about. Darkness though, enemies can position themselves behind it, they can position themselves in it. Any of which can prevent your allies from properly hitting them. Also, let's not forget Darkness is big. It's AOE is almost the size of a fireball.

[Witty Username]

Booming Blade with a reaction sounds like War Caster, but War Caster must only target the AoO trigger, and Booming Blade is an AOE: it targets both its own point of origin and the spell's listed "target" in the text. It's a violation of the RAW to let War Caster work with Booming Blade.

Here's the most optimal way I know how to work it:

PAM+GWM is 2 strikes at 1d10 and a third strike at 1d4, upping to 1d10 if one of the first two critted. All are at +5 (Charisma) +1 (Improved Pact Weapon) +5 (Lifedrinker; necrotic, which is easier to resist than force) + 1d6 (Hex, which has no excuse to stop being up). Super advantage comes from Foresight + Any Elf or Half-Elf + Elven Accuracy. If you include Hexblade's Curse at high levels, that's another +6, getting you the +17. But the +2d8 without using Eldritch Smite, which would be 6d8 4x per short rest... I don't know where that comes from.

Your confusing Range:self, you are the target and Range: Self(Xft) where you are the point of origin but not guaranteed to be the target. it kills spell sniper but not war caster.


Darkness, Fog Cloud, and indeed all vision blockers only really negatively impact your party if you misuse them.

It's little different than cases like, say, the guy who can't figure out how to use Fireball without hitting their party.

Used well, it benefits your party, rather than other way around.
While true, I would say it is more true on a ranged build with say a longbow or hand crossbow, where you can use the darkness to your advantage without affecting your allies at all.
Once you get shadow of moil it is fairly moot either way though.

[Keravath]

I really caution against the darkness approach. You have a party, while darkness while in melee impacts their ability to target/damage enemies.

Shadow of Moil is Nice but it's quickly going to be outclassed by Spirit Shroud in 2 levels which also makes delaying GWM bearable.

I would say that a melee warlock tends to do more damage through most of the game. Let's say you start half elf with 17 charisma.

Level 4 = PAM
Level 8 = Resilient Con (desired to help keep buffs up in combat)
Level 12 = EA
Level 16 = GWM
Level 19 = +2 CHA


A couple of comments
1) Darkness only gets in the way of the party in a small number of cases. Used appropriately it is almost never an issue.
a) With a 10' reach a PAM warlock with darkness can step in, attack and move back leaving the rest of the party completely unaffected.
b) In cases where everyone can't see, the both attackers and defenders can't see, they have both advantage and disadvantage and darkness does nothing to attack rolls. Most attack roll spells do not require you to be able to see your target so in many cases darkness effectively does nothing.
c) The cases where darkness does have a significant effect
- prevents spells that need to see the target (this will affect enemy as well as friendly casters so it can be situationally very useful)
- prevents opportunity attacks so allies can move away without being subject to an opp attack. However, any warlocks with devils sight will still get their opp attacks.
- prevents stacking advantage and disadvantage - shuts down advantage from enemies with pack tactics (thugs, spy etc) as well as ones with the equivalent of reckless attack - but it also prevents barbarian allies from using reckless attack.
d) Darkness blocks enemy abilities requiring sight like a vampire charm or basilisk gaze - there are several opponents against whom darkness is an amazing spell.

2) Spirit shroud increases damage by d8 at level 5 and by 2d8 at level 9. 4.5 or 9 / attack on average.

However, increasing damage also makes it less desirable to use GWM since the opportunity cost of a miss actually goes up.

Anyway, let's say you need to roll a 11 to hit a target - which is typical and makes the math easy since it is a 50% chance.

Glaive: 1d10 + 3 damage if you aren't bumping charisma until late = 8.5 average.
1d4 + 3 = 5.5

0.5 * (2 x 8.5 + 5.5 + 3 x 4.5) = 18 (24.75 with level 5 spirit shroud)
0.75 * (2 x 8.5 + 5.5) = 16.9

However, with GWM at the same to hit value. (-5 to hit reduces hit probability to 0.25)

0.25 * ( 2 x 8.5 + 5.5 + 3 x4.5 + 30) = 16.5
0.4375 * (2 x 8.5 + 5.5 + 30) = 23

Level 9 spirit shroud

0.25 * (2 x 8.5 + 5.5 + 6 x 4.5 + 30) = 19.9

So if you are planning to use GWM, spirit shroud is not a good option - shadow of moil is better due to the increased to hit chance.

The interesting thing here is that, on average, a level 9 PAM blade lock using spirit shroud without using GWM will out damage a GWM warlock using shadow of moil for advantage against average targets. EA might shift the numbers a bit but it should still be close.

[Frogreaver]

A couple of comments
1) Darkness only gets in the way of the party in a small number of cases. Used appropriately it is almost never an issue.
a) With a 10' reach a PAM warlock with darkness can step in, attack and move back leaving the rest of the party completely unaffected.
b) In cases where everyone can't see, the both attackers and defenders can't see, they have both advantage and disadvantage and darkness does nothing to attack rolls. Most attack roll spells do not require you to be able to see your target so in many cases darkness effectively does nothing.
c) The cases where darkness does have a significant effect
- prevents spells that need to see the target (this will affect enemy as well as friendly casters so it can be situationally very useful)
- prevents opportunity attacks so allies can move away without being subject to an opp attack. However, any warlocks with devils sight will still get their opp attacks.
- prevents stacking advantage and disadvantage - shuts down advantage from enemies with pack tactics (thugs, spy etc) as well as ones with the equivalent of reckless attack - but it also prevents barbarian allies from using reckless attack.
d) Darkness blocks enemy abilities requiring sight like a vampire charm or basilisk gaze - there are several opponents against whom darkness is an amazing spell.

Enemies still get turns. Positioning themselves in or behind the darkness prevents advantage and many spells from affecting them.

*There's also the question on whether creatures in the darkness can see out of it. All RAW says is creatures with darkvision that are in the darkness can't see through it which could really go either way.


2) Spirit shroud increases damage by d8 at level 5 and by 2d8 at level 9. 4.5 or 9 / attack on average.

However, increasing damage also makes it less desirable to use GWM since the opportunity cost of a miss actually goes up.

Anyway, let's say you need to roll a 11 to hit a target - which is typical and makes the math easy since it is a 50% chance.

Glaive: 1d10 + 3 damage if you aren't bumping charisma until late = 8.5 average.
1d4 + 3 = 5.5

0.5 * (2 x 8.5 + 5.5 + 3 x 4.5) = 18 (24.75 with level 5 spirit shroud)
0.75 * (2 x 8.5 + 5.5) = 16.9

However, with GWM at the same to hit value. (-5 to hit reduces hit probability to 0.25)

0.25 * ( 2 x 8.5 + 5.5 + 3 x4.5 + 30) = 16.5
0.4375 * (2 x 8.5 + 5.5 + 30) = 23

Level 9 spirit shroud

0.25 * (2 x 8.5 + 5.5 + 6 x 4.5 + 30) = 19.9

So if you are planning to use GWM, spirit shroud is not a good option - shadow of moil is better due to the increased to hit chance.

The interesting thing here is that, on average, a level 9 PAM blade lock using spirit shroud without using GWM will out damage a GWM warlock using shadow of moil for advantage against average targets. EA might shift the numbers a bit but it should still be close.

The point I was making was that you shouldn't be planning to use GWM until extremely late game. PAM is better early. Spirit Shroud is better mid game. You'll want some kind of concentration fix and replacing GWM with resilient Con at level 8 accomplishes that.

[LudicSavant]

Darkness only gets in the way of the party in a small number of cases. Used appropriately it is almost never an issue.

Aye.


While true, I would say it is more true on a ranged build with say a longbow or hand crossbow, where you can use the darkness to your advantage without affecting your allies at all.

While that is true, there are ways for melee too. There's a very constructive discussion about it in the Eclectic Builds thread following the Shadow Monk post -- the people who were saying they had bad experiences with Darkness even tried it again with new tactics and changed their mind on Darkness.

There are a few cases where Darkness is anti-synergistic for specific parties, but these cases are fewer than people often think -- most of the problems I see folks having with Darkness are preventable by adjusting tactics a bit (including all the ones I've seen Frogreaver list above).

[Unoriginal]

I have a question regarding those calculations:

How much of the features used come from the Hexblade, and how much come from the Pact of the Blade?

I'm very curious about how much of a difference it makes to use the other Warlock subclasses, for this in particular.

[Frogreaver]

There are a few cases where Darkness is anti-synergistic for specific parties, but these cases are fewer than people often think -- most of the problems you see people having with Darkness are preventable by adjusting tactics a bit (including all the ones I've seen Frogreaver list above).

Fully Disagree.


I have a question regarding those calculations:

How much of the features used come from the Hexblade, and how much come from the Pact of the Blade?

I'm very curious about how much of a difference it makes to use the other Warlock subclasses, for this in particular.

Hexblade/Pact of the blade - allows you to key off charisma which tends to be very important as it synergizes with EA and Thirsting Blade (+cha mod damage invocation)

Pact of the blade grants an extra attack and +cha mod damage which is much better when you've been scaling charisma to some degree. Without those invocations your melee damage drops off to nearly nothing.

[Valmark]

Enemies still get turns. Positioning themselves in or behind the darkness prevents advantage and many spells from affecting them.

*There's also the question on whether creatures in the darkness can see out of it. All RAW says is creatures with darkvision that are in the darkness can't see through it which could really go either way.


Which is the same for the party, so it's a wash until you consider that you could just put the Darkness on an object and keep it on yourself so as to cover it in case you really want to make the Darkness area disappear.

What do you mean by the second paragraph? That creatures aren't seeing through darkness when they are within it?

[Corran]

Enemies still get turns. Positioning themselves in or behind the darkness prevents advantage and many spells from affecting them.
You can always drop concentration on it if it hurts you more than it benefits you. Easier said than done when you are playing with the warlock's budget, and it could also mean that you are leaving yourself exposed more than you would like too, but my bottom line is that you dont have to commit to it once you realize it's a mistake, but instead you try to cut your loses. So let's just say that there is increased room for error when using darkness (or any other vision blockers; especially ones that no one can see through, cause leaving yourself blind to what some of the enemies are doing might be just asking for trouble), especially as a warlock going through a tough situation in between short rests.

Much of the frustration can also be caused by an unwilligness to adjust. Telling the cleric to use something other than sacred flame, or telling the wizard to ready the fireball for when you move out of the way, might not sit well with players who prefer fast paced combat that is not unecessarily complicated.



The point I was making was that you shouldn't be planning to use GWM until extremely late game. PAM is better early. Spirit Shroud is better mid game. You'll want some kind of concentration fix and replacing GWM with resilient Con at level 8 accomplishes that.
I agree with this quote in general, though I would still like to take into consideration opportunity cost at a greater extent. Like action economy and slots expenditure. While I can guess that PAM and spirit shroud produces better damage figures when compared to PAM and darkness, if you have the opportunity to precast darkness thanks to its increased duration, and you can also use it to shoot past two encounters, again because the duration conveniently allowed for that, well, that could change the comparison by a whole lot (of course that opens up a whole other discussion about the opportunity cost of kind of commiting to a single spell for multiple encounters which you may not have done sufficient scouting for, also about how realistic it would be to expect to keep your concentration going for that long, and all that assumes that we are not questioning our decision to commit that hard to self buffing). Since in this scenario (assuming there was no drawback to using darkness), using darkness saved you two actions and one slot which could be used for something else. Melee hexblades are weird, and I've learned to value a lot more knowledge about their party composition than about their theoritical dpr (and I am saying that while at the same time I think that dpr figures are generally pretty useful).

[Frogreaver]

Which is the same for the party, so it's a wash until you consider that you could just put the Darkness on an object and keep it on yourself so as to cover it in case you really want to make the Darkness area disappear.

What do you mean by the second paragraph? That creatures aren't seeing through darkness when they are within it?

Most play that you get 1 object interaction a turn. So most would play that you could put darkness up or down but not up and down on the same turn. Meaning you would pain your party with it up half of the turns. Not a bad plan to cut down on it, but doesn't fully prevent it.

The second paragraph: The Darkness spell doesn't explicitly say that characters in it cannot see out of it. It says characters cannot see through this darkness. IMO that's adequate wording to rule it either way by RAW.

[LudicSavant]

Which is the same for the party, so it's a wash until you consider that you could just put the Darkness on an object and keep it on yourself so as to cover it in case you really want to make the Darkness area disappear.

Mm-hm. Anyone in your party can switch off Darkness with an object interaction.

Like, Fog Cloud is super good when used properly, and Darkness is easier to prevent getting in your party's way than Fog Cloud is, for a wide variety of reasons (moves with an object, can be covered up, upcast Continual Flame objects can suppress it, a whole bunch of PC abilities simply bypass it, etc).


Most play that you get 1 object interaction a turn.

So most would play that you could put darkness up or down but not up and down on the same turn. Meaning you would pain your party with it up half of the turns. Not a bad plan to cut down on it, but doesn't fully prevent it.

...1 object interaction a turn does not somehow make this the case. That would only happen if you were randomly flickering it with no concern whatsoever for strategy, turn order, etc, and not cooperating with your party at all. And if you were also disregarding all the other tactical tools available to you, too.

[Valmark]

Most play that you get 1 object interaction a turn. So most would play that you could put darkness up or down but not up and down on the same turn. Meaning you would pain your party with it up half of the turns. Not a bad plan to cut down on it, but doesn't fully prevent it.

The second paragraph: The Darkness spell doesn't explicitly say that characters in it cannot see out of it. It says characters cannot see through this darkness. IMO that's adequate wording to rule it either way by RAW.

Unless a party member uses their object interaction too. If there's nobody who can do that you're likely far enough that Darkness isn't a problem (unless you're the only melee character and everybody's ranged without much mobility I guess).

I think you'll find it hard to convince anybody that if something is between you and someone else you don't need to see through it, unless you have something like sharing senses with a familiar (preferably not something costing your action though).

[Frogreaver]

I agree with this quote in general, though I would still like to take into consideration opportunity cost at a greater extent. Like action economy and slots expenditure. While I can guess that PAM and spirit shroud produces better damage figures when compared to PAM and darkness, if you have the opportunity to precast darkness thanks to its increased duration, and you can also use it to shoot past two encounters, again because the duration conveniently allowed for that, well, that could change the comparison by a whole lot (of course that opens up a whole other discussion about the opportunity cost of kind of commiting to a single spell for multiple encounters which you may not have done sufficient scouting for, also about how realistic it would be to expect to keep your concentration going for that long, and all that assumes that we are not questioning our decision to commit that hard to self buffing). Since in this scenario (assuming there was no drawback to using darkness), using darkness saved you two actions and one slot which could be used for something else. Melee hexblades are weird, and I've learned to value a lot more knowledge about their party composition than about their theoritical dpr (and I am saying that while at the same time I think that dpr figures are generally pretty useful).

I mostly agree here. Only thing is darkness doesn't save you actions. It costs you actions unless you can completely prebuff it - which has alot to do with when the DM calls for initiative. In most of my games that's as soon as the player declares an intent to do something perceived as hostile - which tends to place the casting of darkness inside initiative - (obviously other variables could lead to different outcomes).

But as long as you are casting it in combat even once then it's taking away attacks. Spirit Shroud also does but it's simply 1 bonus action attack each combat.


Unless a party member uses their object interaction too. If there's nobody who can do that you're likely far enough that Darkness isn't a problem (unless you're the only melee character and everybody's ranged without much mobility I guess).

That's fair and something I hadn't considered.


I think you'll find it hard to convince anybody that if something is between you and someone else you don't need to see through it, unless you have something like sharing senses with a familiar (preferably not something costing your action though).

Darkness isn't an object. It's darkness. Have you ever looked outside over a dark field to see your lit up neighbors house? One can't see 'through the darkness' in relation to anything within it but one can 'see through the darkness' in relation to the neighbors house.

[LudicSavant]

That's fair and something I hadn't considered.

See? You can learn new tactics.

That exact tactic and a great many more for Darkness are listed in that thread I referred to earlier, by the way.

[Valmark]

Darkness isn't an object. It's darkness. Have you ever looked outside over a dark field to see your lit up neighbors house? One can't see 'through the darkness' in relation to anything within it but one can 'see through the darkness' in relation to the neighbors house.

Magical darkness that explicitely blocks vision doesn't have anything to do with normal darkness (or magical darkness that says nothing about blocking vision).

[Frogreaver]

Magical darkness that explicitely blocks vision doesn't have anything to do with normal darkness (or magical darkness that says nothing about blocking vision).

It doesn't explicitly block vision. All it says is 'A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness'


See? You can learn new tactics.

No need for the rudeness

[Valmark]

It doesn't explicitly block vision. All it says is 'A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness'


Just to be clear, are you saying that something that stops your vision is not blocking it?

[Frogreaver]

Just to be clear, are you saying that something that stops your vision is not blocking it?

Just to be clear let's start here. How does the Darkness spell effect a human (no darkvision)? It has the same effect as regular non-magical darkness on him. It doesn't block his vision - at least not anymore than non-magical darkness would. At least it doesn't say it does...

Are you saying that Darkness Spell effects creatures with darkvision more detrimentally than creatures without it?

[Valmark]

Just to be clear let's start here. How does the Darkness spell effect a human (no darkvision)? It has the same effect as regular non-magical darkness on him. It doesn't block his vision - at least not anymore than non-magical darkness would. At least it doesn't say it does...

Are you saying that Darkness Spell effects creatures with darkvision more detrimentally than creatures without it?

Of course not. If someone with Darkvision can't see through the darkness someone without it would just as well not see through it.

[Frogreaver]

Of course not. If someone with Darkvision can't see through the darkness someone without it would just as well not see through it.

RAW doesn't say that.

But I did find the key to showing your ruling is right even if maybe for the wrong reasoning :smallsmile:

"A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)."

That rule is the key! It doesn't matter whether they could see anything out of it or not, by 5e RAW we don't even have to ask that question. All we need to know is if they are in darkness that heavily obscured their vision then they suffer from the blinded condition. That's the rule that makes darkness spell symmetrical for those in and out of it.

[MoiMagnus]

When talking about RAW about darkness, don't forget to use the latest printing of the PHB. Some of the earlier printing had natural darkness blind anyone trying to see through, as if it was fog. Since this applied to regular darkness, it would applies to magical darkness too.

In my PHB, the wording for heavily obscured is the following (emphasis is mine):
"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

[Frogreaver]

When talking about RAW about darkness, don't forget to use the latest printing of the PHB. Some of the earlier printing had natural darkness blind anyone trying to see through, as if it was fog. Since this applied to regular darkness, it would applies to magical darkness too.

In my PHB, the wording for heavily obscured is the following (emphasis is mine):
"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

Oh wow, that's actually a big change. Was that an errata or just a PHB update?

[Valmark]

RAW doesn't say that.

But I did find the key to showing your ruling is right even if maybe for the wrong reasoning :smallsmile:

"A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A)."

That rule is the key! It doesn't matter whether they could see anything out of it or not, by 5e RAW we don't even have to ask that question. All we need to know is if they are in darkness that heavily obscured their vision then they suffer from the blinded condition. That's the rule that makes darkness spell symmetrical for those in and out of it.


When talking about RAW about darkness, don't forget to use the latest printing of the PHB. Some of the earlier printing had natural darkness blind anyone trying to see through, as if it was fog. Since this applied to regular darkness, it would applies to magical darkness too.

In my PHB, the wording for heavily obscured is the following (emphasis is mine):
"A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

Tbh I was using neither of those since this isn't normal darkness or even normal magical darkness (?)- it's good to know though. I think I've been using the second version (the 'in' one) unknowingly by default for 'normal' darkness.

And I'm still not going to consider it in my games since this treats fog as if it was normal darkness :p

[Frogreaver]

Tbh I was using neither of those since this isn't normal darkness or even normal magical darkness (?)- it's good to know though. I think I've been using the second version (the 'in' one) unknowingly by default for 'normal' darkness.

And I'm still not going to consider it in my games since this treats fog as if it was normal darkness :p

When trying to view things inside heavy fog, the fog and darkness should be treated the same. The rules do this.

When not looking inside the fog or darkness the rules are now silent. So I’m not sure where you get the rules force you to treat fog and darkness the same in that situation. That aspect now Seems completely open to dm ruling to me.

[MoiMagnus]

Oh wow, that's actually a big change. Was that an errata or just a PHB update?

Both. They first tried to errata, as in the 2017 errata list, you can find:
"Vision and Light (p. 183). A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it."

But this was still broken, so from 2018 and on, you have the following errata (and PHB updated accordingly):
"Vision and Light (p. 183). The second sentence of the third paragraph has been changed to “A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.”

[Valmark]

When trying to view things inside heavy fog, the fog and darkness should be treated the same. The rules do this.

When not looking inside the fog or darkness the rules are now silent. So I’m not sure where you get the rules force you to treat fog and darkness the same in that situation. That aspect now Seems completely open to dm ruling to me.

Fog (opaque) and darkness are called out as both being heavily obscured areas- with the errata they both blind when trying to see in the area.

As such, ruling that darkness (bog standard darkness) doesn't stop you from looking through (perfectly reasonable) and see someone on the other side would make the fog act the same, at least based on those words.

I obviously disagree with the above notion being a good choice, so I don't use it.

[Selion]

I know that the post has derailed a little, but I found another calculator that fits better our discussion. Apparently GMW, taking in account everything, is an improvement in most situation, especially if there are means to get advantages.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/7rb3y4/great_weapon_master_calculator/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body

I'll repost then the dmg of a greatsword (ignoring PAM at the moment) and EB, using level 17 and AC 17 (which i think is a common AC at high levels)

Without advantage
Greatsword : 24.10 x2 = 48
EB : 12.7 x 4 = 50.8
EB hexblade curse: 18.1 x 4 = 72.4


With advantage :
Greatsword: 32.92 x 2 = 65.84
EB: 14.4 x 4 = 57.64
EB hexblade curse: 20.35 x 4 = 81.4

Considering that hexblade curse is not so easy to activate at distance, and that there are situations in which advantage is easier to obtain in melee , i think that after all these two play styles are comparable, having both pros and cons.

PAM would flip the table toward melee damage, but I'm still not sure it's mandatory in some builds, hexblades have a kinda busy bonus action.

[Frogreaver]

I know that the post has derailed a little, but I found another calculator that fits better our discussion. Apparently GMW, taking in account everything, is an improvement in most situation, especially if there are means to get advantages.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/7rb3y4/great_weapon_master_calculator/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body

I'll repost then the dmg of a greatsword (ignoring PAM at the moment) and EB, using level 17 and AC 17 (which i think is a common AC at high levels)

Without advantage
Greatsword : 24.10 x2 = 48
EB : 12.7 x 4 = 50.8
EB hexblade curse: 18.1 x 4 = 72.4


With advantage :
Greatsword: 32.92 x 2 = 65.84
EB: 14.4 x 4 = 57.64
EB hexblade curse: 20.35 x 4 = 81.4

Considering that hexblade curse is not so easy to activate at distance, and that there are situations in which advantage is easier to obtain in melee , i think that after all these two play styles are comparable, having both pros and cons.

PAM would flip the table toward melee damage, but I'm still not sure it's mandatory in some builds, hexblades have a kinda busy bonus action.

I’m unable to get 24.1 damage on a single attack with a great sword without advantage. The most I get with spirit shroud and hexblades curse and GWM vs 17 ac is 22.5.

Never mind, you do more damage without GWM. I get 24 that way.

[Selion]

I’m unable to get 24.1 damage on a single attack with a great sword without advantage. The most I get with spirit shroud and hexblades curse and GWM vs 17 ac is 22.5.

Never mind, you do more damage without GWM. I get 24 that way.

The software i'm using takes in account both critical hits and enhancement magic bonus to weapons (assuming a +3 at level 17, i guess), that's why the damage differs from yours

[Frogreaver]

The software i'm using takes in account both critical hits and enhancement magic bonus to weapons (assuming a +3 at level 17, i guess), that's why the damage differs from yours

So what are all the parameters you/it are factoring in?

[Selion]

So what are all the parameters you/it are factoring in?

level: 17
defense: 17
weapon dice: 1d6
WEAPON_NUMBER: 2
OTHER_DAMAGE_MOD 11 (hexblade curse + lifedrinker)
crit range: 19

[Frogreaver]

level: 17
defense: 17
weapon dice: 1d6
WEAPON_NUMBER: 2
OTHER_DAMAGE_MOD 11 (hexblade curse + lifedrinker)
crit range: 19

What the next does weapon number represent?

[Selion]

What the next does weapon number represent?

Greatsword is 2d6, they just implemented weapon dice and weapon number in two different parameters, in the discussion on reddit the author explains every detail.

[Frogreaver]

Greatsword is 2d6, they just implemented weapon dice and weapon number in two different parameters, in the discussion on reddit the author explains every detail.

Thanks. I wasn’t sure if it meant weapon dice or number of attacks.

Also just so I’m clear, this means the bonus action attack from crit with GWM isn’t included?

[Keravath]

Most play that you get 1 object interaction a turn. So most would play that you could put darkness up or down but not up and down on the same turn. Meaning you would pain your party with it up half of the turns. Not a bad plan to cut down on it, but doesn't fully prevent it.

The second paragraph: The Darkness spell doesn't explicitly say that characters in it cannot see out of it. It says characters cannot see through this darkness. IMO that's adequate wording to rule it either way by RAW.

The vision rules are not that well written (true :) ). However, the rules on darkness (a heavily obscured area) are the following:

"A heavily obscured area-such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."

So, RAW, an area of darkness blocks vision entirely (which I agree doesn't make much sense when you imagine an illuminated area outside of a dark area but that IS what the rules say though they also mention that seeing something IN the area counts as blinded but not the reverse which would be consistent with seeing out of an area of normal darkness but not into it (which is what everyone would expect).

However, the darkness spell says:
"A creature with darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it."

Depending on how a DM decides to read this ... light being unable to illuminate the area of magical darkness means that light can not pass through it since if the light passed through it would be illuminating the area inside (the atmosphere or particles within it scatter the light). If light can't pass through then the area blocks vision entirely which is consistent with the heavily obscured condition caused by darkness.

Anyway, the way I run it, and interpret it based on the rules citations above is that magical Darkness does block non-magical light and thus vision since it can't be illuminated which is consistent with both the rules for darkness and heavily obscured areas and the darkness spell. However, I realize others like to read it differently which is perfectly ok - DMs run things differently.

[Selion]

Thanks. I wasn’t sure if it meant weapon dice or number of attacks.

Also just so I’m clear, this means the bonus action attack from crit with GWM isn’t included?

I don't think the bonus attack is included, the damage output is that of a single weapon attack

[Hael]

I know that the post has derailed a little, but I found another calculator that fits better our discussion. Apparently GMW, taking in account everything, is an improvement in most situation, especially if there are means to get advantages.
.

The more realistic calculation IMO involves the hexblade using their spells optimally, and not necessarily to output white room damage. So eg concentration is being used for a summon or flying or something like that.

So no Hex or spirit shroud. So then it’s like what’s more important a 2h GWM sword without SS vs EB without hex. And there iirc it was tier dependant. Melee did well early, but EB scales better into tier3.

[LudicSavant]

I know that the post has derailed a little, but I found another calculator that fits better our discussion.

If you're shopping around for calculators, try the calculator in my sig (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?582779-Comprehensive-DPR-Calculator-(v2-0)) (also stickied on this forum's "notable threads" list). Made by a real mathematician and everything. The documentation (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?582779-Comprehensive-DPR-Calculator-(v2-0)) also explains how it works, and how you can do all this stuff by hand if you want to learn how.

[greenstone]

1) Darkness only gets in the way of the party in a small number of cases. Used appropriately it is almost never an issue.

I strongly disagree. Having played a melee character with darkness, it was a hassle in almost every combat.

If nothing else, it meant my character was never covered by the paladin's aura, since they were never that close.

[LudicSavant]

I strongly disagree. Having played a melee character with darkness, it was a hassle in almost every combat.

I'm sure that it was a hassle for you in every combat, but your experience doesn't disprove what he's saying. The keywords are "used appropriately." Darkness is well known for being misused by many players.

"Strongly disagree, I used it and it wasn't good" is kind of like saying "strongly disagree, I picked Fox on the character select screen, and I didn't perform like Armada (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkHcCOHwEGo)." Well that's great -- but it is possible that Armada's doing something with Fox that you're not.

I'm willing to bet that if you actually told us the exact things you did, the wonderful people of this community would point out a whole bunch ways you could have used Darkness without suffering the hassle that you did. Why am I so sure of that? Because I've seen that exact progression of events time after time. Someone thinks Darkness is bad. Someone shows the situation where they did bad. Someone points out how a simple change in tactics would have completely eliminated the problem (or often, make it a benefit to your team instead of a downside). Time after time.

Go on, give a try! If Darkness is a hassle for you in every combat, I can pretty much guarantee you have an opportunity to learn and improve your strategy! :smallsmile:

[Zalabim]

Hexblade/Pact of the blade - allows you to key off charisma which tends to be very important as it synergizes with EA and Thirsting Blade (+cha mod damage invocation)

Pact of the blade grants an extra attack and +cha mod damage which is much better when you've been scaling charisma to some degree. Without those invocations your melee damage drops off to nearly nothing.
As a pet issue of mine, most of the same could have been available to any patron if Life drinker were changed off of requiring Charisma. Make it always 1d8, or proficiency bonus, or something, just make it not tied to ASIs. Then performance for strength or dex blade warlocks wouldn't fall off a cliff relative to Eldritch blast in tier 3. Especially within the same character as they could get by with whatever starting Charisma and access to a ton of spells which are good without a full investment in getting more.

Also, all these damage comparisons for hexblade are ignoring that the EB option also gets to wield a shield.

Putting my pet peeves aside, the hex warrior is one of the best situated PCs to use Polearm Master. The combination has effective ranged and melee attack options, so it's hard to shut down and easy to provoke enemies into triggering your opportunity attacks. Plus you can pretend you're wielding a scythe for all that edge.

[Keravath]

I strongly disagree. Having played a melee character with darkness, it was a hassle in almost every combat.

If nothing else, it meant my character was never covered by the paladin's aura, since they were never that close.

That's ok - everyone has different experiences. I've played a hexblade warlock 10/shadow sorcerer 1 from 1st level using darkness+devils sight from levels 3-6 and shadow of moil from level 7 onward. I frequently used darkness in melee and neither myself nor the party had any major issues with it. That is my experience which obviously differs from yours.

I used darkness in dungeons, wilderness settings, a wide range of conditions. I may not have often been in the paladin's aura but honestly that was only one level - level 6 - and after that I could use Shadow of Moil.

I found darkness had a number of both tactical and strategic uses against a variety of opponents and most of the time I could easily keep it from interfering with whatever my party members wanted to do.

That clearly didn't seem to happen in your case - though if it was such a problem, I am surprised you would have continued to use it at all. I used it virtually every combat with no significant issues.