Why the hate on hexblade?

[LudicSavant]

Bad implementation ≠ Bad fluff.

Uhm, yes it does. If you write bad fluff text for your class, your class has bad fluff text.

[Arkhios]

I'm not arguing that Hexblade is designed well, not at all. It's mechanical overload at first level already is just too much, even from my point of view. All I'm saying is that the 5e Hexblade's fluff is solid and usable as is. I'd argue D&D isn't supposed to enable an accurate portrayal of historical or mythological stories, but rather tell completely new ones of your own. Hexblade flavor doesn't have to fall 100% in line with the trope it clearly draws inspiration from. Even then it doesn't have to.

Its design does leave a lot to hope for, however.

[Christew]

Why did you absolutely need all that? Swashbuckler, like any rogue, gets its damage from sneak attack. You have it easier than other rogues to get sneak attack in melee and can move away from your target without an AoO without using your Cunning Action. You can bonus action hide sneak attack with a bow as any rogue when you don't want to be in melee. If you really need the AC there's the Moderately Armored feat. Play Variant Human if you need it at first level. Perhaps you wanted Booming Blade to punish your target for coming after you when you move away. It's a good idea, but some might say that's being greedy. Would you still have wanted all that if Hexblade didn't exist? You wanted specific things. Why is it Hexblade's fault it fulfilled them to condemn it?

Edit: For criticism against Hexblade vis a vis it should have been part of Pact of the Blade in the first place I nod my head.

Not really sure why we're off on a tangent where I have to defend a character build, but this Swashbuckler was being run in a 1v1 campaign. Without party members it is significantly harder to get sneak attack and being forced to front line requires enhanced survivability. Therefore I wanted booming blade for crowd control and a shield to go with my rapier. Variant human with moderate armor lacks the cantrip. High elf lacks the shield. Hexblade delivers everything in a neat and cost effective package. Too neat and cost effective because it outpaces other one level dip or race (though I don't think we should be comparing races especially vhuman -- vhuman is the Hexblade 1 of races).

You edit is oddly worded, but yes, that is the point being made by most Hexblade complainants.

[ProsecutorGodot]

All I'm saying is that the 5e Hexblade's fluff is solid and usable as is. I'd argue D&D isn't supposed to enable an accurate portrayal of historical or mythological stories, but rather tell completely new ones of your own. Hexblade flavor doesn't have to fall 100% in line with the trope it clearly draws inspiration from. Even then it doesn't have to.

I'd argue that it still fails in that regard, even if you just observe the name, source of power and narrative/mechanical results as your only references.

Name: Hexblade. Blade is in the name, you'd better have a cool one that makes you strong. Warlock Subclass naming conventions suggest that your pact would be with the weapon.

Source of Power: Not a weapon, but the blacksmith. They gave you magic powers, no weapon required.

Narrative Result: You don't even have to use a weapon for your powers to manifest. Most of your abilities don't even rely on a weapon at all.

Mechanical Result: You have a curse you inflict that is not reliant on a weapon and you aren't even tied to one weapon emulated after Blackrazor as the fluff implies, you switch between upgrades that likely don't even resemble Blackrazor in the slightest (unless you've chosen Pact of the Blade) because not every +X weapon in the world is going to.

[Segev]

Honestly, my issue with Hexblade is it's too pigeonholed to the Raven Queen. Would be nice if it had a bit more leeway to work with other possible patrons, or some options on certain things. Also I really don't care for the level 6 feature as it makes it hard to flavor into other types of patrons.

The hexblade warlock in my game (because the player wanted those mechanics, and it's honestly not the mechanics I have a problem with, other than HOW they're given) has, as his Patron, Baggy Nanna. She took the young Warlock under her wing and was a second mother to her. A horrible influence of a second mother. She taught her all sorts of fun tricks and encouraged bad behavior, until one day the young Warlock went too far and realized just how bad an influence "Auntie Nanna" was.

Spoiler: Ren's player, you can read this if you want, but it is a spoiler

Show

For the 6th level feature of the Hexblade, the Night Hag patron actually makes MORE sense than a "weapon" or a "weapon smith." Baggy Nanna is going to send an emmissary - a quickling named Coxquro - with a gift of a specially-stitched bag of supple leather to her protege. "Nanna says you're about ready to take care of this, yourself," Coxquro will tell her. It's a "baby's first soul bag," and will enable Ren, the Warlock, to do the spectre-binding thing when she hits sixth level.

No shield proficiency on Mountain Dwarves.

My mistake. Even better, then, because that leaves a hand free for somatic gestures without needing the War Caster feat.

[LudicSavant]

My mistake. Even better, then, because that leaves a hand free for somatic gestures without needing the War Caster feat.

My preferred way of getting a medium armor + shield on a single class Wizard is to go Hobgoblin and take the Moderately Armored feat.

Don't really need the War Caster feat since there's no real reason to use a weapon anyways. Just use a cantrip that doesn't have melee penalties, like Toll the Dead.

[Zetakya]

Mountain Dwarf is the only method of getting Medium Armour proficiency that doesn't also give Shield Proficiency. Which is actually a problem, because it then means that all of the methods of getting Shield Proficiency are very wasteful for Dwarves.

Mountain Dwarf is, in my opinion, one of (if not the) best balanced race available. It offers something useful for everyone; CON and Darkvision are universal, Martials love the STR bonus and non-martials love the Armour and Weapon proficiencies, It's hard to find a class that doesn't do well as a Mountain Dwarf.

[LudicSavant]

Mountain Dwarf is the only method of getting Medium Armour proficiency that doesn't also give Shield Proficiency.

No, it isn't. Githyanki does the same thing.

[JackPhoenix]

Mechanical Result: You have a curse you inflict that is not reliant on a weapon and you aren't even tied to one weapon emulated after Blackrazor as the fluff implies, you switch between upgrades that likely don't even resemble Blackrazor in the slightest (unless you've chosen Pact of the Blade) because not every +X weapon in the world is going to.

Speaking of Blackrazor, it doesn't work with Hex Warrior or Pact of the Blade. Hex Warrior needs one-handed weapon, unless it's a weapon summoned through Pact of the Blade, and PotB can't bond with Blackrazor, as it is sentient.

[Zetakya]

No, it isn't. Githyanki does the same thing.

I stand corrected; For some reason I thought Githyanki only received light armour proficiency. The point still stands on the awkwardness though.

[JackPhoenix]

I stand corrected; For some reason I thought Githyanki only received light armour proficiency. The point still stands on the awkwardness though.

Multiclassing to barbarian, however, gives proficiency with shield, but not any armor.

[Sorinth]

The difference in AC is plain to see. How can you argue against that being an immense benefit?

Mountain Dwarf doesn't give proficiency in Shields. There is an actual trade off there. You're losing out on +1 hp/level and the +2 Strength rarely works well with the medium armour proficiency.

Mountain Dwarf is good but it's not overpowered. There are real choices to be made. Sure a Mountain Dwarf Wizard has decent AC and the +2 Con is nice but they're not getting a bonus to Dex or Int as they would like to have with another race. After 5th level Mage Armour becomes an affordable spell to cast as well which mitigates much of the bonus provided.

This is not the same thing.

Have you looked at the other levels? The Hexblade's 6th level feature is at least as good as Fey and Fiend and much better than Old One.

The Patrons aren't supposed to be very powerful. Not all subclasses have the same impact on a class. The Warlock has their subclass essentially split into patron, pact, and invocations.

Stop and compare the abilities and what it means for the character.

The difference between an AC of 14 and an AC of 18/19 is absolutely huge. And for what cost? Having a damage boosting Hex instead of a 1 round fear effect? That isn't a cost.

For Mountain Dwarf it's not 14 vs 18/19, it's 16/17 vs 18/19 which is not that big. For V. Human you can get both M. Armor and Shields and still get you bonus to Charisma.

If getting that level of AC on a full caster was overpowered then prior to Hexblade coming out every guide would tell you take V. Human and grab Moderately Armored, but they didn't. The armor + shields is good, no doubt about that, but it doesn't make them overpowered. Just like a Wizard who started his 1st level as fighter to get Heavy Armor and Con saves is good but not overpowered.

And Vuman is out of line with every other race.

You're not helping by comparing to a very powerful race and feats (many of which are also quite powerful).

Is Moderately Armored now considered one of the powerful feats now? Cause I've never seen anyone claim that it is a strong feat, and frankly I doubt anyone ever takes it except for some very niche builds or for RP reasons.

If the argument is that a Warlock is OP because they get Medium Armor + Shields and therefore can have a good AC then prior to Hexblade we would've seen tons of V. Human Warlocks taking the Moderately Armored feat, but that didn't happen.

And then you're not taking another race or another feat.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

You can list 1000 abilities which are better than having medium armour and shields proficiencies but that doesn't mean anything if you're not actually discussing the choices. You need to compare patron to patron.

There is a significant cost to taking Human and grabbing medium armour proficiency. Compare human with medium armour/shields, +2 Dex +1 Cha, and a skill proficiency to Half-Elf with +2 Cha, +1 Dex, +1 Con, 2 skill proficiencies, and darkvision.

There is no tradeoff on the patron because Hexblade is already a strong patron without the armour proficiencies factored in. They're just significant bonuses on top of their already strong patron abilities.

Except the claim is that they are over powered which means the comparison should be with other builds that are also considered over powered and not with previous pact of the blade Warlock because they were considered underpowered.

With a point buy system V. Human and Half-Elf would get pretty much the same stats, 16 in both Charisma and Constitution and a 14 Dex. Really the only difference is the Half elf will have a better tertiary stat like Wisdom or Intelligence. Darkvision is probably meaningless due to Devil's Sight. A small boost to a tertiary stat and an extra skill is not what I would consider a significant cost. The real opportunity cost of doing that is not taking an actual powerful feat, which just shows that having m. armor + shield isn't overpowered.

If prior to Hexblade, Half-Elf was comparable to V. Human taking Moderately Armored then clearly getting Medium Armor and Shield on a Warlock is not over powered. If it was then everyone would've either taken V. Human or spent their first ASI on it. But they didn't because even though it's good it's not overpowered.

[elyktsorb]

I feel the best way to tell if something is 'too good' in a game isn't to ask what you get from it, but rather what you wouldn't take over it.

[Sception]

I don't hate the class per se but dislike it because it's hard to come up with a good character background story without it being supremely edgy.

I would argue that that's a deliberate feature. Some classes, and especially some subclasses, are just edgy by design, on account of a fair number of players enjoying that sort of flavor - ironically or otherwise. Warlock in general tends towards edginess. Arguably Hexblade isn't even the sharpest example there.

I do agree that the Hexblade lore is weak and ambiguous, but I don't really blame the Hexblade for that. Rather I blame the tangentially related 5e lore for the Raven Queen, which tries to carry forward one of the few break out popular bits of fluff introduced in 4e, but in the process completely changes each and every individual aspect that made the 4e version popular, and then tries to cover up the fact that the 5e version is Raven Queen in name only by being as nebulous and noncommittal about the new version as possible. Taken on her own merits, the 5e version of the Raven Queen isn't even bad, she's actually potentially rather compelling, but that lack of commitment tarnishes everything related to her, and since the decision had already been made to tie the Hexblade to the Raven Queen (that's where the specter thing comes from), the decision to just not commit to anything regarding her 5e fluff ended up leaving the Hexblade similarly poorly defined.

To really give hexblades a role and make them shine in your campaigns you don't need to change their mechanics (though personally if you're prone to house ruling I would recommend taking hex warrior out of hexblade and just adding it into pact of the blade), but you do need to change, or at least expand, their patron lore. Some possible examples, in a spoiler block since it's all half baked homebrew stuff:

Spoiler

Show

1) Hexblade patrons aren't magic swords, but rather death spirits or psychopomps - grim reapers, ferrymen, angels of death, shinigami, Dullahan, some sort of supernatural entity that either heralds the death of mortals or invites mortals to their deaths or guids the souls of the dead to the appropriate afterlife. Of course, you'd have to add a class of such creatures to your game. Frankly it's kind of surprising that D&D hasn't really had such a thing by default. Several similar concepts, but nothing as universally and specifically defined as, say, demons, devels, celestials, etc. 4e's version of Sorrowsworn would have worked for this, and not surprisingly 4e's Sorrowsworn served 4e's Raven Queen. The hexblade's subclass features are a very good fit for a mortal servant of such a creature. Unfortunately, 5e's Sorrowsworn are something else entirely, but you could either reintroduce the 4e version to your game under another name, or introduce some other similar class of supernatural entities associated with death and transition that might form pacts with mortals either to enact their will on the mortal world or else out of pure curiosity about the lives led by the souls they're always ferrying around.


2) In Ravnica specifically, the members of the Obzedat, the Orzhov's ruling ghost council, work especially well as patrons for a Hexblade warlock. Their portfolios well fit the hexblade's supernatural powers of deadly curses and compelling ghosts into temporary indentured service, and each of them would greatly value having individual enforcers tied to them specifically that they could use to advance not just the goals of the Orzhov generally but also their personal agendas over each other. Plus the fact that they're basically the undead board of directors of an all powerful banking monopoly fits with the interpretation of the warlock pact where the patron is giving up a small portion of their power that then grows with the mortal spirit of the warlock as they gain experience, eventually returning with that growth as interest to the patron once the warlock's mortal lifespan inevitably comes to an end.


3) Expand the existing lore rather than replacing it. This is going to be the longest suggestion since it requires making stuff up and you still have a patron that isn't just a distinct supernatural personality that the DM can role play normally. So who is the hexlock's patron? A Hexblade - not just any powerful magic item but rather one of a particular family of semi-sentient cursed weapons. The weapon specifically is the patron, not the "shadowy force" behind it. Why doesn't the warlock actually have the weapon in hand? Because the Hexblades were banished by the gods to the void outside of reality long ago, and now their only means of interacting with other beings, and their only hope of returning to reality, is via warlock pacts. Who made them? Why were they banished? You could answer this any number of ways dependent on your campaign, but one way that fits is to say they were specifically created by the Raven Queen. The 5e version of the Raven Queen. If your game uses the 4e version then just replace the standard hexblade patron with the 4e version of Sorrowsworn and have done. The 5e Raven Queen collects memories of grief and sorrow, blesses and consoles those who have suffered through it, but also is implied to manipulate events - deliberately or otherwise - in such a way as to manufacture the sorts of tragic memories she collects.

Legendary cursed artifact weapons can do all of these things. They can be a blessing granted to someone who has suffered tragedy, a gift of power by which they can prevent such tragedies from striking themselves or their loved ones again. But they can also be the source of grief and sorrow, as individuals or even entire armies are drawn to such weapons, fighting wars over possessing them, leaving ever greater tragedy in their wake. One can imagine countless generations of orphans, each seeing their parents cut down, each swearing to reclaim the stolen blade that was their birthright and use it to kill the one who murdered their parents and stole it in the first place, only to leave the next generation of vengeful orphans in their wake. A few generations of suffering, maybe one or two needless wars later, and the suffering mortals finally beseech their gods to take these cursed weapons away. Hence their banishment, along with the Raven Queen being forbidden from creating any more.

As for what the hexblades themselves desire as warlock patrons? Well, primarily what they want is that slowly harvested 'power with interest' end of the warlock exchange. When they accumulate enough, a hexblade can use that power to cut it's way back into reality, manifesting a physical form in the real world - at least temporarily. Until its power is too drained to maintain that form, or until the servants of the gods find the weapon and banish it again. But even more than that, what a hexblade wants is to be wielded, to clash with foes, to cut down enemies. A given hexblade might not be inherently evil. While intelligent, it might not even be truly sentient. Though supernatural in nature, it is fundamentally a weapon, and a weapon is a tool whose purpose is to kill. A banished hexblade desperately wants to kill again, and by sharing it's power with a warlock it will get to.

As for how the pact is forged in the first place, forgotten tomes might reveal the true names of one or more of the lost hexblades and rituals by which they might be contacted and their power bargained for - such rituals perhaps involving forging an effigy of the hexblade which the prospective warlock uses to draw their own blood, which they then use to write out a contract. Alternatively a cursed family of warriors or a secretive order of arcane knights might have a shared pact with a hexblade, passing its power and its curse down through the generations - think something like the Belmonts from the Castlevania games. But most commonly a hexblade will simply appear to mortals who crave power - especially those who feel helpless in the face of tragedy and wish for a weapon they might use to strike back against those responsible. A hexblade might appear in such a person's mind, offering them an unspoken pact: "I will be your weapon, if only you will wield me".

Though some hexblades might impose specific terms, taboos, and compulsions upon their warlocks - never sheath your blade without it first tasting blood, never let an insult go unanswered, carve a particular rune in the bodies of those you kill, kill at least one creature each moon, always accept any challenge to a duel, touch only bladed weapons, etc - most make no such impositions. In general, Hexblades seems to be the least demanding of warlock patrons, but the hexblade's demands aren't absent, merely subtle, a constant pressure on the mind, violence always springing to first thought when presented with any obstacle or conflict. Petty slights sting more than they should, demand satisfaction and redress. And while the toll a hexblade expects in exchange for the pact might not be paid up front, it is paid none the less - exacted in the form of the tragedy that follows in the hexlock's wake. When they aren't creating enough sorrow in others through the violent use of their powers, that grief will instead visit them and their loved ones in the form of sudden and unexpected misfortunes. Either way the blade lodged in their soul sucks up the sorrow and the bloodshed alike, while always urging them towards further violence and misfortune.

Some hexlocks will never recognize the source of their suffering and will instead simply stumble from tragedy to bloody revenge in an inescapable cycle, leaving a trail of misery in their wake. Hexlocks who do recognize the pattern and its source might quest for a way to rid themselves of their curse, or destroy their patron outright. Along the way, they might stay on the move, trying not to form attachments to those who might suffer as a result. Think Guts from Berserk. Others will simply satiate the Hexblade's desires by seeking out targets to prey upon - whether innocent victims or deserving villains. These hexlocks existing on the aligment extremes, whether villains constantly in search of their next victim or heroes perpetually questing for more wrongs to avenge, tend to be the happiest, most successful, and least self destructive. They are able to exist in a state of harmony with their patron and avoid drawing its misfortune down on themselves and those they care about, but it's an uneasy and unstable balance that must be constantly maintained.

As a DM with a Hexlock in your party, ask yourself: has the Hexlock used their powers to fight and kill anything in the last month?
Was that in a battle against a worthy foe, or at least against a sentient creature that could properly appreciate the power being used on them? Beyond simple bloodshed, has the Hexlock soaked up any grief? Have they either suffered some significant sorrow themselves, or spent time consoling the sorrow of others, or at least inflicted some sorrow on their foes (simply killing enemies isn't enough if there were no family or survivors to lament the loss)? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then it might be time for the hexlock themselves, one of the other PCs, or especially an npc the party happens to care about to suffer an unexpected tragedy. Do not tell the players *why* this is happening. If they happen to notice a pattern, then they can attempt to work out the reason for themselves via divination or otherwise, and if they figure out why misfortune seems to spring up whenever they start to settle down, that it's a result of the warlock they travel with, then they can decide what to do about it then.

Mechanically, the hexlock's cha-based fighting style is the martial skill of all those who wielded their patron in its physical existence being magically channeled through the strength of their bond. The curses reflect the cursed nature of the hexblade, it's predisposition to bring misfortune on those around it, channeled by the warlock's will towards their enemies. The specter thing is the hexblade drawing out the despair of a victim past even their mortal death.

[Sorinth]

I would argue that that's a deliberate feature. Some classes, and especially some subclasses, are just edgy by design, on account of a fair number of players enjoying that sort of flavor - ironically or otherwise. Warlock in general tends towards edginess. Arguably Hexblade isn't even the sharpest example there.

I do agree that the Hexblade lore is weak and ambiguous, but I don't really blame the Hexblade for that. Rather I blame the tangentially related 5e lore for the Raven Queen, which tries to carry forward one of the few break out popular bits of fluff introduced in 4e, but in the process completely changes each and every individual aspect that made the 4e version popular, and then tries to cover up the fact that the 5e version is Raven Queen in name only by being as nebulous and noncommittal about the new version as possible. Taken on her own merits, the 5e version of the Raven Queen isn't even bad, she's actually potentially rather compelling, but that lack of commitment tarnishes everything related to her, and since the decision had already been made to tie the Hexblade to the Raven Queen (that's where the specter thing comes from), the decision to just not commit to anything regarding her 5e fluff ended up leaving the Hexblade similarly poorly defined.

To really give hexblades a role and make them shine in your campaigns you don't need to change their mechanics (though personally if you're prone to house ruling I would recommend taking hex warrior out of hexblade and just adding it into pact of the blade), but you do need to change, or at least expand, their patron lore. Some possible examples, in a spoiler block since it's all half baked homebrew stuff:

Spoiler

Show

1) Hexblade patrons aren't magic swords, but rather death spirits or psychopomps - grim reapers, ferrymen, angels of death, shinigami, Dullahan, some sort of supernatural entity that either heralds the death of mortals or invites mortals to their deaths or guids the souls of the dead to the appropriate afterlife. Of course, you'd have to add a class of such creatures to your game. Frankly it's kind of surprising that D&D hasn't really had such a thing by default. Several similar concepts, but nothing as universally and specifically defined as, say, demons, devels, celestials, etc. 4e's version of Sorrowsworn would have worked for this, and not surprisingly 4e's Sorrowsworn served 4e's Raven Queen. The hexblade's subclass features are a very good fit for a mortal servant of such a creature. Unfortunately, 5e's Sorrowsworn are something else entirely, but you could either reintroduce the 4e version to your game under another name, or introduce some other similar class of supernatural entities associated with death and transition that might form pacts with mortals either to enact their will on the mortal world or else out of pure curiosity about the lives led by the souls they're always ferrying around.


2) In Ravnica specifically, the members of the Obzedat, the Orzhov's ruling ghost council, work especially well as patrons for a Hexblade warlock. Their portfolios well fit the hexblade's supernatural powers of deadly curses and compelling ghosts into temporary indentured service, and each of them would greatly value having individual enforcers tied to them specifically that they could use to advance not just the goals of the Orzhov generally but also their personal agendas over each other. Plus the fact that they're basically the undead board of directors of an all powerful banking monopoly fits with the interpretation of the warlock pact where the patron is giving up a small portion of their power that then grows with the mortal spirit of the warlock as they gain experience, eventually returning with that growth as interest to the patron once the warlock's mortal lifespan inevitably comes to an end.


3) Expand the existing lore rather than replacing it. This is going to be the longest suggestion since it requires making stuff up and you still have a patron that isn't just a distinct supernatural personality that the DM can role play normally. So who is the hexlock's patron? A Hexblade - not just any powerful magic item but rather one of a particular family of semi-sentient cursed weapons. The weapon specifically is the patron, not the "shadowy force" behind it. Why doesn't the warlock actually have the weapon in hand? Because the Hexblades were banished by the gods to the void outside of reality long ago, and now their only means of interacting with other beings, and their only hope of returning to reality, is via warlock pacts. Who made them? Why were they banished? You could answer this any number of ways dependent on your campaign, but one way that fits is to say they were specifically created by the Raven Queen. The 5e version of the Raven Queen. If your game uses the 4e version then just replace the standard hexblade patron with the 4e version of Sorrowsworn and have done. The 5e Raven Queen collects memories of grief and sorrow, blesses and consoles those who have suffered through it, but also is implied to manipulate events - deliberately or otherwise - in such a way as to manufacture the sorts of tragic memories she collects.

Legendary cursed artifact weapons can do all of these things. They can be a blessing granted to someone who has suffered tragedy, a gift of power by which they can prevent such tragedies from striking themselves or their loved ones again. But they can also be the source of grief and sorrow, as individuals or even entire armies are drawn to such weapons, fighting wars over possessing them, leaving ever greater tragedy in their wake. One can imagine countless generations of orphans, each seeing their parents cut down, each swearing to reclaim the stolen blade that was their birthright and use it to kill the one who murdered their parents and stole it in the first place, only to leave the next generation of vengeful orphans in their wake. A few generations of suffering, maybe one or two needless wars later, and the suffering mortals finally beseech their gods to take these cursed weapons away. Hence their banishment, along with the Raven Queen being forbidden from creating any more.

As for what the hexblades themselves desire as warlock patrons? Well, primarily what they want is that slowly harvested 'power with interest' end of the warlock exchange. When they accumulate enough, a hexblade can use that power to cut it's way back into reality, manifesting a physical form in the real world - at least temporarily. Until its power is too drained to maintain that form, or until the servants of the gods find the weapon and banish it again. But even more than that, what a hexblade wants is to be wielded, to clash with foes, to cut down enemies. A given hexblade might not be inherently evil. While intelligent, it might not even be truly sentient. Though supernatural in nature, it is fundamentally a weapon, and a weapon is a tool whose purpose is to kill. A banished hexblade desperately wants to kill again, and by sharing it's power with a warlock it will get to.

As for how the pact is forged in the first place, forgotten tomes might reveal the true names of one or more of the lost hexblades and rituals by which they might be contacted and their power bargained for - such rituals perhaps involving forging an effigy of the hexblade which the prospective warlock uses to draw their own blood, which they then use to write out a contract. Alternatively a cursed family of warriors or a secretive order of arcane knights might have a shared pact with a hexblade, passing its power and its curse down through the generations - think something like the Belmonts from the Castlevania games. But most commonly a hexblade will simply appear to mortals who crave power - especially those who feel helpless in the face of tragedy and wish for a weapon they might use to strike back against those responsible. A hexblade might appear in such a person's mind, offering them an unspoken pact: "I will be your weapon, if only you will wield me".

Though some hexblades might impose specific terms, taboos, and compulsions upon their warlocks - never sheath your blade without it first tasting blood, never let an insult go unanswered, carve a particular rune in the bodies of those you kill, kill at least one creature each moon, always accept any challenge to a duel, touch only bladed weapons, etc - most make no such impositions. In general, Hexblades seems to be the least demanding of warlock patrons, but the hexblade's demands aren't absent, merely subtle, a constant pressure on the mind, violence always springing to first thought when presented with any obstacle or conflict. Petty slights sting more than they should, demand satisfaction and redress. And while the toll a hexblade expects in exchange for the pact might not be paid up front, it is paid none the less - exacted in the form of the tragedy that follows in the hexlock's wake. When they aren't creating enough sorrow in others through the violent use of their powers, that grief will instead visit them and their loved ones in the form of sudden and unexpected misfortunes. Either way the blade lodged in their soul sucks up the sorrow and the bloodshed alike, while always urging them towards further violence and misfortune.

Some hexlocks will never recognize the source of their suffering and will instead simply stumble from tragedy to bloody revenge in an inescapable cycle, leaving a trail of misery in their wake. Hexlocks who do recognize the pattern and its source might quest for a way to rid themselves of their curse, or destroy their patron outright. Along the way, they might stay on the move, trying not to form attachments to those who might suffer as a result. Think Guts from Berserk. Others will simply satiate the Hexblade's desires by seeking out targets to prey upon - whether innocent victims or deserving villains. These hexlocks existing on the aligment extremes, whether villains constantly in search of their next victim or heroes perpetually questing for more wrongs to avenge, tend to be the happiest, most successful, and least self destructive. They are able to exist in a state of harmony with their patron and avoid drawing its misfortune down on themselves and those they care about, but it's an uneasy and unstable balance that must be constantly maintained.

As a DM with a Hexlock in your party, ask yourself: has the Hexlock used their powers to fight and kill anything in the last month?
Was that in a battle against a worthy foe, or at least against a sentient creature that could properly appreciate the power being used on them? Beyond simple bloodshed, has the Hexlock soaked up any grief? Have they either suffered some significant sorrow themselves, or spent time consoling the sorrow of others, or at least inflicted some sorrow on their foes (simply killing enemies isn't enough if there were no family or survivors to lament the loss)? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then it might be time for the hexlock themselves, one of the other PCs, or especially an npc the party happens to care about to suffer an unexpected tragedy. Do not tell the players *why* this is happening. If they happen to notice a pattern, then they can attempt to work out the reason for themselves via divination or otherwise, and if they figure out why misfortune seems to spring up whenever they start to settle down, that it's a result of the warlock they travel with, then they can decide what to do about it then.

Mechanically, the hexlock's cha-based fighting style is the martial skill of all those who wielded their patron in its physical existence being magically channeled through the strength of their bond. The curses reflect the cursed nature of the hexblade, it's predisposition to bring misfortune on those around it, channeled by the warlock's will towards their enemies. The specter thing is the hexblade drawing out the despair of a victim past even their mortal death.

I think the problem is actually the Patron should never have been linked to the abilities in the first place. All Patrons should have been fluff.

So you would have been able to take the Fiend abilities but your Patron was actually an Avenging Angel. You could take the GOO abilities but have a Fey Patron, etc...

[ad_hoc]

For Mountain Dwarf it's not 14 vs 18/19, it's 16/17 vs 18/19 which is not that big. For V. Human you can get both M. Armor and Shields and still get you bonus to Charisma.

If getting that level of AC on a full caster was overpowered then prior to Hexblade coming out every guide would tell you take V. Human and grab Moderately Armored, but they didn't. The armor + shields is good, no doubt about that, but it doesn't make them overpowered. Just like a Wizard who started his 1st level as fighter to get Heavy Armor and Con saves is good but not overpowered.

You're still not understanding.

Obviously having medium armour proficiency in general is not overpowered. Fighters are not overpowered for example.

Having 1 patron who has it though makes that patron overpowered.

Do you see the difference?

Take a Diviner Wizard (or whatever) and also give them medium armour proficiency and shields. Would that be overpowered to you? Who wouldn't want to take that subclass?

[Spiritchaser]

In the thread about what people would nerf and ban, the number one choice was hexblade, and I don't understand why. Do people just hate the armor profs?

I wouldn’t nerf it, I wouldn’t ban it: BUT that needs to be taken in context of my players/campaigns/allowed UA

The fluff stinks. Anyone in my campaign is welcome to propose something (anything) better, or I’ll write in something that fits the campaign.

It’s a very strong dip class. Ok, it is, that’s poorly done, but it doesn’t bring part caster CHA MC builds up to full casters.

Single class Hexblade warlock’s are flat out better than other warlock options? No not absolutely but I agree it’s generally stronger than the others, at least in combat. I don’t think it’s the outlier, more like the other patrons are. I do allow the UA eldritch armor invocation, which I find to be an annoying feat tax, but it does make quite a difference. I’ve also toyed with allowing it without the blade pact prerequisite, which makes the archfey a heck of a lot cooler... Definitely case by case on this one though

[ad_hoc]

I wouldn’t nerf it, I wouldn’t ban it: BUT that needs to be taken in context of my players/campaigns/allowed UA

The fluff stinks. Anyone in my campaign is welcome to propose something (anything) better, or I’ll write in something that fits the campaign.

It’s a very strong dip class. Ok, it is, that’s poorly done, but it doesn’t bring part caster CHA MC builds up to full casters.

Single class Hexblade warlock’s are flat out better than other warlock options? No not absolutely but I agree it’s generally stronger than the others, at least in combat. I don’t think it’s the outlier, more like the other patrons are. I do allow the UA eldritch armor invocation, which I find to be an annoying feat tax, but it does make quite a difference. I’ve also toyed with allowing it without the blade pact prerequisite, which makes the archfey a heck of a lot cooler.

It's not the outlier, the other patrons are the outliers?

That word does not mean what you think it means.

[Pex]

Not really sure why we're off on a tangent where I have to defend a character build, but this Swashbuckler was being run in a 1v1 campaign. Without party members it is significantly harder to get sneak attack and being forced to front line requires enhanced survivability. Therefore I wanted booming blade for crowd control and a shield to go with my rapier. Variant human with moderate armor lacks the cantrip. High elf lacks the shield. Hexblade delivers everything in a neat and cost effective package. Too neat and cost effective because it outpaces other one level dip or race (though I don't think we should be comparing races especially vhuman -- vhuman is the Hexblade 1 of races).

You edit is oddly worded, but yes, that is the point being made by most Hexblade complainants.

I'm fine with your build, but you're blaming Hexblade for giving you what you wanted.

There are a number of classes/subclasses that give juicy stuff at 1st level and even 2nd level. A cleric domain. Con and armor proficiency. Cantrips. Fighting style. Action Surge. Cunning Action. Expertise. Smiting. Rage. The complaint against Hexblade is the complaint against dipping. I don't hold the view of dipping being a bad thing. I see it where others do, but I value enjoyment of game mechanics. A player having his fun that doesn't win D&D is not a bad thing.

[Spiritchaser]

It's not the outlier, the other patrons are the outliers?

That word does not mean what you think it means.

If we were looking only at warlocks, sure

If we’re also looking at clerics, druids, paladins, bards, Bladesingers, war mages and an assortment of other 5e casters with added survival tools?

It means exactly what I think it means.

[Boci]

The fluff stinks. Anyone in my campaign is welcome to propose something (anything) better, or I’ll write in something that fits the campaign.

When I played a hexblade I asked my DM if I could just make it a feypact, but I asked for martial grace rather than the traditional fey trickery.

[KOLE]

I'm fine with your build, but you're blaming Hexblade for giving you what you wanted.

There are a number of classes/subclasses that give juicy stuff at 1st level and even 2nd level. A cleric domain. Con and armor proficiency. Cantrips. Fighting style. Action Surge. Cunning Action. Expertise. Smiting. Rage. The complaint against Hexblade is the complaint against dipping. I don't hold the view of dipping being a bad thing. I see it where others do, but I value enjoyment of game mechanics. A player having his fun that doesn't win D&D is not a bad thing.

I agree with you completely- I enjoy multiclass builds and encourage my players to find that synergy. But there's a difference between fine tuning a build combining Battlemaster maneuvers with Swashbuckler for versatility, or taking a couple of levels in Bard to diversify your Draconic Sorc and give you some party support, and a one size fits all one level dip that doesn't interfere with caster levels, grants full martial capabilities, the best offensive cantrip in the game, and synergizes perfectly with an Ability that most spellcasters need and is very useful out of combat. Though some make the argument, I'm completely for dips and multi builds. But the Hexblade is the one exception: it overshadows everything. When something is so good it becomes a requirement to be optimized rather than an option, it hurts the game overall, encourages munchkinnery, and discourages actual creativity or mechanical prowess.

[Segev]

Point of order: Hexblade Warlock dips do interfere with caster levels. Pact magic doesn't add in to increase spell slot acquisition from normal casting, and with a dip only provides 1 level 1 slot.

[Sception]

I think the problem is actually the Patron should never have been linked to the abilities in the first place. All Patrons should have been fluff.

So you would have been able to take the Fiend abilities but your Patron was actually an Avenging Angel. You could take the GOO abilities but have a Fey Patron, etc...

Eh, to me patron makes as much sense as anything for warlock subclasses. More sense than most things, honestly. Pact Boons don't really fit the bill for me, I really don't see enough room to expand them into proper subclasses, especially since honestly I think bladelock should be it's own half caster class distinct from warlock entirely. Full Caster subclasses that tack on the sort of armor proficiences that a melee warrior class needs never work out well, imo, hexblade itself is an example but so are bladesinger and valor bard, both subclasses that try to be gishy spellcasting sword-swingers but end up just being casters with better AC.

Different patrons having subclass powers themed around the nature of that patron makes sense to me. If one has the mechanics but not the flavor you want that's fine, reworking established class lore to fit game mechanics to a novel character concept is a long standing D&D tradition.

[KOLE]

Point of order: Hexblade Warlock dips do interfere with caster levels. Pact magic doesn't add in to increase spell slot acquisition from normal casting, and with a dip only provides 1 level 1 slot.

But that comes with it's own perk of having a level 1 spell slot that comes back on a short rest. One level warlock + 3rd level primary spellcaster = 5 level one slots. You're giving up higher level slots for a little more versatility on the lower end, and it puts Shield on your spell list. It's a trade off, sure, but much less of one than taking a martial or half caster which actively guts your slots.

[JakOfAllTirades]

What most people seem to object to is the supposed 'Sadness' that it allows for cha classes and that I don't get. First of all, it's only offensive sadness, and almost all classes are offensively SAD by default. The champion fighter uses Strength for both their melee attacks and the save DCs of their maneuvers. Wizards, clerics, sorcerers, and blasty warlocks use the same casting stats for theor cantrip spell attacks and their spell save DCs. Rogues use Dex for all their attacks, Barbarians use strength for everything, etc.

The only exceptions are monks and half or third casters, and it's very easy to make the argument that these exceptions are the problems. Especially since even if you fix the offensive MADness of these classes, they still need multiple stats for defence.

A hexblade still needs 14 dex for medium armor for their AC, or 15 strength for heavy armor if they have heavy armor proficiency. They still need constitution, both as a melee combatant who needs more HP than a back line archer or spell slinger and as a caster who needs to pass concentration saves or lose their best spells. Arguably the only classes with as much dependance on Constitution are clerics, paladins, and the exceptionally rare barbarian who actually tries to fight unarmored.

In this sense, a hexblade - including paladins & melee bards who dip hexblade - are still significantly less SAD than, say, a fighter or rogue, who's singular offensive stats are also used for their AC.


My point is that yeah, hexblade is awkward and overly front loaded, and tacking a fix to a third level pact boon onto the first level features of what is otherwise a fully functional patron independent of that patch was a bad idea. But if you're worried about the whole SADness thing, you really shouldn't.

That's... actually a thorough analysis of the SADness issue. Up to this point, I thought this was the most egregious of the Hexblade's flaws, but now I'm not sure. Thanks for posting this.

I'm not convinced that giving Hexblades this feature was necessary, (or that it's a needed house rule fix for the Blade Pact) but perhaps it's not the game-breaker I thought it was.

[Joe the Rat]

The thing is, what I wanted was the ability to play Pact of the Blade with any of the other sub classes.

Power creep and multiclass abuse aside, this is the biggest issue. Looking at Pact of the Blade, or Melee Warlock in general, Hexblade is mechanically the best choice, hands down. A non-pact of the blade hexblade will still be stronger in melee that a pact of the blade for any other patron. Frankly, many of the features here should be part of the blade pact, or a blade invocation at worst. Making Charisma to hit/damage a Pact feature would make a big shift. The Hexblade is still base proficient like a baby martial (which is strong), and has the Hexblade Curse (which while strong is really what the class should be focused on), but making the SADness a 3rd level PACT feature opens doors again, and leans into balancing melee v casting.

Hell, WotC could leave the Hexblade as-is, add Cha for hittin' to the pact (oh noes, the weapon-heavy patron doesn't get as much from the weapon Pact), and have at least a semblance of internal balancing.

I need to remember to add this to my houserule list.

Speaking of Blackrazor, it doesn't work with Hex Warrior or Pact of the Blade. Hex Warrior needs one-handed weapon, unless it's a weapon summoned through Pact of the Blade, and PotB can't bond with Blackrazor, as it is sentient.

Ironic, isn't it?
(I waived that for my player, though he does run into other issues...)

[Sorinth]

Different patrons having subclass powers themed around the nature of that patron makes sense to me. If one has the mechanics but not the flavor you want that's fine, reworking established class lore to fit game mechanics to a novel character concept is a long standing D&D tradition.

The powers are generic enough though that you could easily find cases where one type of patron would be better suited with another versions mechanics.

For instance, if your pact is with a Shadow Demon or a Night Hag you have a pact with a Fiend, yet the mechanics of Hexblade would actually be a better fit. An Avenging Angel Patron would actually better represented by the Fiend's mechanics. And the list goes on, there's no reason they needed to link the Patron to the mechanics.

[Theodoxus]

It's hard to find a class that doesn't do well as a Mountain Dwarf.

Monk. If I had to play a dwarven monk, I would definitely not go mountain...

Rogue gains very little - even a strength rogue would find the weapon profs useless. Not that hill provides much better if you just had to go dwarf... but an extra hit point vs less reliance on Dex to AC... mitigation vs avoidance... subjective call...

Ranger... gains little from mountain. Not as bad as monk, but almost... +2 Str vs +1 Wis... all things being equal, I'd probably go Hill (the HP boost is also as welcome as the Con boost).

Cleric and Druid, neither need Strength over Wisdom, for sure... so...

5/12 classes would prefer Hill to Mountain... though I definitely agree with you on Int and Cha based casters, the opposite is true!

[Christew]

I'm fine with your build, but you're blaming Hexblade for giving you what you wanted.

There are a number of classes/subclasses that give juicy stuff at 1st level and even 2nd level. A cleric domain. Con and armor proficiency. Cantrips. Fighting style. Action Surge. Cunning Action. Expertise. Smiting. Rage. The complaint against Hexblade is the complaint against dipping. I don't hold the view of dipping being a bad thing. I see it where others do, but I value enjoyment of game mechanics. A player having his fun that doesn't win D&D is not a bad thing.

No, I'm blaming Hexblade for being an outlier on (specifically) level one abilities granted. It limits creativity and diversity to have a "best" option, because there is an opportunity cost to taking any other route. I would rather not dip Hex, but would be effectively gimping myself to not do so. I just wish it were more in line with other classes (ie requiring two or three levels).

All classes grant some kind of distinct feature at early levels by design. Otherwise level 1 would be even more painful than it already is and you wouldn't feel like you were playing your chosen class out of the gate. My complaint (as stated earlier) is the power of ONE level in Hexblade. A TWO (cunning action, action surge, channel divinity and domain feature) level dip is a significant investment that has significant costs (spell progression, ASIs, etc) in a way that ONE is not (especially if that dip grants pact magic). Barbarian 1 is the only fair comparison you offer, but it's required strength focus makes it far, far less versatile and therefore less desirable than Hexblade.

I agree with you completely- I enjoy multiclass builds and encourage my players to find that synergy. But there's a difference between fine tuning a build combining Battlemaster maneuvers with Swashbuckler for versatility, or taking a couple of levels in Bard to diversify your Draconic Sorc and give you some party support, and a one size fits all one level dip that doesn't interfere with caster levels, grants full martial capabilities, the best offensive cantrip in the game, and synergizes perfectly with an Ability that most spellcasters need and is very useful out of combat. Though some make the argument, I'm completely for dips and multi builds. But the Hexblade is the one exception: it overshadows everything. When something is so good it becomes a requirement to be optimized rather than an option, it hurts the game overall, encourages munchkinnery, and discourages actual creativity or mechanical prowess.

This.