Hexblade vs Paladin

[RSP]

If you search on reddit 3d6 for sustained dpr, you'll find the spreadsheet with the numbers that I quoted.

How is needing to use Hexblades Curse and limited 2+ SR spell slots per batlle considered “sustained dpr”?

If the Hexblade is a halfdrow (which I was) then he has an additional spellslot that he can use for another smite (putting him well ahead).

How does the half drow have 20 Cha and 2 feats at level 14? Obviously this isn’t done using standard array.

I'm not going to include the extra 5 or 6 dpr from the Hexblade's minion... (im assuming one curse only on a one fight blow everything you got deal)

Again, not sure why you’re counting “a one fight blow everything you got” as sustained dpr.

You get the picture. The reason the numbers are so skewed is b/c of self-advantage. In practise...

In practice, Conc will be dropped by the AC 17 Hexblade quite regularly, even when they’re being attacked at disadvantage.

As you had, at best, a +2 Con mod, and used your ASIs on +2 Cha (for a 19 if using standard array), GWM and PAM (therefore no Resilient (Con) or Warcaster), your chances of passing even a minimum Conc check of DC 10 is only 60%. And that will usually be a check where you’re passing at less than 50%, with enemies a level 14 party should be fighting.

For example, a CR 9 Fire Giant (hardly a challenge), attacks with +11 to hit. So they need a 6 or better to hit the SoM Warlock. Granted, it’s at disadvantage, but each attack is still more likely to hit then not. And they get 2 attacks per round, doing ~28 damage per hit. So that’s possibly two rolls of DC 14 Con checks per round against what should be an easy opponent. You most likely will fail either of those rolls (40% chance to pass either; which my basic math skills equates to a 16% chance to pass both of hit twice - though I could be off).

This also doesn’t count either Counterspell or Dispel Magic, either of which will ruin your even favorable calculations.

And no ES or no SoM if doing 3 combats before a short rest, which statistically should happen about once a combat day or so.

Also, were you factoring in the BM at level 13, but the Hexblade at level 14?

[RSP]

Shadow of Moil spell says "Flame-like shadows wreathe your body until the spell ends, causing you to become heavily obscured to others. The shadows turn dim light within 10 feet of you into darkness, and bright light in the same area to dim light."

Darkvision overcomes it, since it's just shadows causing darkness

Not correct. It’s that the flame like shadows cause you to be heavily obscured - not that the caster is heavily obscured because it creates darkness.

If you care about Crawford’s tweets or RAI:

“Shadow of Moil heavily obscures you, full stop. The spell also dims the light around you.

The fact that you're heavily obscured is a result of the flame-like shadows surrounding you, not the result of being in darkness. This means you're heavily obscured even to darkvision. #DnD https://twitter.com/DerynDraconis/st...78620490948608 …”

[Mr Adventurer]

Not correct. It’s that the flame like shadows cause you to be heavily obscured - not that the caster is heavily obscured because it creates darkness.

If you care about Crawford’s tweets or RAI:

“Shadow of Moil heavily obscures you, full stop. The spell also dims the light around you.

The fact that you're heavily obscured is a result of the flame-like shadows surrounding you, not the result of being in darkness. This means you're heavily obscured even to darkvision. #DnD https://twitter.com/DerynDraconis/st...78620490948608 …”

Like many, I take tweets with a grain of salt - especially given they don't necessarily impart the specific RAI as-written.

In this case, it hardly matters, since most of what I wrote still applies.

[RSP]

Like many, I take tweets with a grain of salt - especially given they don't necessarily impart the specific RAI as-written.

In this case, it hardly matters, since most of what I wrote still applies.

What still applies? Darkvision, nor Truesight would see through SoM, as it heavily obscures without darkness or illusion.

I’m not saying SoM is a great spell, but it does heavily obscure the caster quite effectively.

[Mr Adventurer]

What still applies? Darkvision, nor Truesight would see through SoM, as it heavily obscures without darkness or illusion.

I’m not saying SoM is a great spell, but it does heavily obscure the caster quite effectively.

My position is that the obscurement does result from darkness. The text I quoted seems quite clear to me in that sense.

If others are not running with it in that way, that's fine.

[RSP]

My position is that the obscurement does result from darkness. The text I quoted seems quite clear to me in that sense.

If others are not running with it in that way, that's fine.

Fair enough, though the spell does say it’s heavy obscured, and doesn’t mention it being from lighting conditions.

Also, it’s fair to assume most others will play it as it provides HO that Darkvision doesn’t see through (as that’s what the spell says and it’s RAI).

[Mr Adventurer]

Fair enough, though the spell does say it’s heavy obscured, and doesn’t mention it being from lighting conditions.

Also, it’s fair to assume most others will play it as it provides HO that Darkvision doesn’t see through (as that’s what the spell says and it’s RAI).

Of course, although I don't agree that that's what the spell says.

[kbob]

Like many, I take tweets with a grain of salt - especially given they don't necessarily impart the specific RAI as-written.

I thought Crawford’s Tweets were considered rulings. I believe that he said his and only his were as he is the rules designer.

He said darkvision cannot see through SoM as it isn’t due to darkness but the shadows themselves. (Im guessing its implied then that they’re not like real shadows but something akin to the shadow realm or something necromancy like). He goes on to say though, that True Seeing would see through it.

I personally think SoM is one of the most powerful spells in all 5e especially for its level.
You get the mechanical advantage of greater invisibility (adv attack, dadv on being attacked, not targeted by spells that require seeing target). You also deal damage when someone does hit you in melee. And, not that it would come up often, but there is potential of using dim light/darkness radius to aid other party members around you. Oh and resistance to radiant damage. Almost forgot that one (but again doesn’t come up often as a PC).

[RSP]

Of course, although I don't agree that that's what the spell says.

They certainly could have been more explicit with their intent but using better words. Yes, usually “shadows”=dim light, which isn’t HO and would affect the caster just as much as anyone else. However, the spell explicitly states it does create HO, and that it only affects others in this way, and not the caster, so it’s not “shadows” as represented in the Dim Light description but something else.

[Mr Adventurer]

They certainly could have been more explicit with their intent but using better words. Yes, usually “shadows”=dim light, which isn’t HO and would affect the caster just as much as anyone else. However, the spell explicitly states it does create HO, and that it only affects others in this way, and not the caster, so it’s not “shadows” as represented in the Dim Light description but something else.

Shadows may or may not qualify as Dim Light. Sufficient shadows may qualify as any level of obscurement. I take it that the spell states it creates sufficient shadows for heavy obscurement.

Shadows, in common language, are a kind of darkness.

[RSP]

Shadows may or may not qualify as Dim Light. Sufficient shadows may qualify as any level of obscurement. I take it that the spell states it creates sufficient shadows for heavy obscurement.

Shadows, in common language, are a kind of darkness.

I was referring to this line from the PHB: “Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area.”

In this reference, shadows=dim light. In the SoM, it does not.

[Mr Adventurer]

I was referring to this line from the PHB: “Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area.”

In this reference, shadows=dim light. In the SoM, it does not.

Understandable. I wouldn't hold that shadows, as an entire category, ought to fall into the definition of Dim Light, myself. Squares and parallelograms and all that.

[Alucard89]

The SOM debate was cleared long time ago, there is no point in bringing that back here.

Flame- like Shadows makes caster heavy obscured. That's it. It's not illusion, it's not darkness or magical darkness (which are two seperate fenomenas in mechanic). It's physical obscurment. True seeing or Darkvision doesn not help with that at all, period. The things that truesigh penetrates are very clearly detailed:

"normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceives the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the creature can see into the Ethereal Plane. "

Shadows from SOM are not: magical darkness or normal darkness (that second effect of the spell, not first one), it's not invisibility, it's not visual illusion (it's necromancy spell), it's not tranformation or shapechanging and it has nothing to do with Ethereal Plane.

The second effect of SOM is creating darkness (not magical darkness) which Darkvision or Truesight penetrates but only to see caster surrounded by flame-like shadows. Those magical flame-like shadows are some magical phenomena that does what it says- heavy obscure caster. That is all.

It's that simple.

Also few words from me about concentration checks, since I was playing Hexblade quite a lot:

If someone is afraid of his concentration save throws - I had good experice with it. In real gameplay if you play PAM Hexblade as you should - get in, get out etc. and try to back off behind your true front liners - you are motly fine. Also when you play in party there is usually quite a lot of things around - Hypnotic Pattern on enemies from your Wizard, Aura from your Paladin, Bless from your Cleric, Cutting Words from your Bard etc. My Druid was using Longstrider on me and our Sorcerer was Twinning Haste on my and Paladin, so I had 80 movement every turn with 10 feet reach without provoking OAs etc. In some encounters we had Fearie Fire going so I could go for other spell etc.

In real gameplay scenario concentration wasn't really that bad. Sure I had dropped my sometimes (mostly due to occasional AOE spells but those are not every encounter), but not really less than my Cleric or Sorcerer since they were getting hit much more often (Sorc due to low AC and Cleric due to being always at front line in the middle of enemies). I wasn't on front line (My Paladin and Cleric was there) and I was more of mobile grinder than anything else. I also avoided a lot of damage from spells that need to see target, which was very helpful.

So if you expect to be front liner with Hexblade - I suggest taking different class/build than that. But if you want to be striker attacking from second line (or even third with range build) Hexblade kills fast enough to be able to live with 16 CON really well for quite some time.

That was at least my experience. You can always start with 1 level of Sorcerer or Fighter for CON saves if you really want. Both dips have quite a lot of good stuff for Hexblade anyway.

[Hael]

How is needing to use Hexblades Curse and limited 2+ SR spell slots per batlle considered “sustained dpr”?
How does the half drow have 20 Cha and 2 feats at level 14? Obviously this isnÂ’t done using standard array.
Again, not sure why you’re counting “a one fight blow everything you got” as sustained dpr.
Also, were you factoring in the BM at level 13, but the Hexblade at level 14?

For all the dpr calculations, I was assuming a variant human build (PAM, two cha asis + GWM) at lvl 13 and ditto for the fighter (SS/Xbow Expert as the feats, 2 dex asis, and a feat/asi of his choice b/c there aren't any more obvious dpr boosters at this point), standard array.

In my campaign I never reached lvl 13, I played till lvl 10 with a half-drow. I had a pam/elven accuracy build at the time and was the offtank.. I don't know which is min-maxed, it doesn't matter, they all hit very hard.

DPR calculations in 5e are a little bit silly to be sure, b/c usually one of the fights per short rest is what I call clean up/resource burners. You don't really need to hit a kobold very hard to kill it, which is why the crappy ranger build can be just as effective as the minmaxed xbow fighter build for those. Your bard/wizard blows a cc spell, the healer blows a few heal spells to top everyone off, maybe a buff spell, and you're done.

Otoh DPR matters when it matters, and you're usually looking at the scenarios I was mentioning. Either swamped with enough adds to wipe the party (necessitating a big aoe), or you have a big nasty thing that takes multiple rounds of sustained firepower to kill (and there you're looking at blowing action surge, all the battledie, curse, voe, smites etc), so it makes sense to do it as I have. As I indicated, even in scenarios where you don't blow any resources other than the usual darkness opener, you're still doing ~50% higher sustained (and basically even if they take your darkness down).

In my experience there were multiple times where casting darkness (a 10 min duration) was long enough to successfully encompass two fights worth, and there were very few times where con saves put me in a truly bad spot (the one time I recall vividly was due to aoes repeatedly clipping me and making me lose all my slots which ended up hurting us).

As Alucard says, if you want to be the main tank, then you wouldn't build a char this way, nor would you build a paladin this way either. SC Hexblade is a good option for a party if you need reliable damage (both melee and ranged), some tankiness, good movement and strong but limited spell options. It pairs well with classes like Moon druids that have endless amounts of hitpoints and control. It also pairs really well with Paladins...

[RSP]

Otoh DPR matters when it matters, and you're usually looking at the scenarios I was mentioning.

My point is you said you were doing sustained dpr comparisons. Using limited resources in a “big fight, blow all your slots” is in no way sustained dpr. So saying that’s the Warlock’s sustained damage is incorrect. Nor is it fair to use a nova damage build to compare to an actual sustained damage build: its two different things.

Your experiences may be different, but the DMs I’ve played with don’t just allow characters to sit behind “tanks” with impunity, so Concentration checks are a more regular thing.