Moving Hex Warrior to Pact of the Blade

[Yakk]

1) Hexblade gets to add (Cha/2) (round up) to weapon attacks and damage with their weapon. Attack bonus is only +1 if the weapon is magical.
(This is honestly about as good as Hex Warrior's "attack with cha", but it requires you to have some strength/dex as well as your charisma, and doesn't let you use elven accuracy on greataxes)

2) Pact of the Blade, when their blade is in hand, can substitute a melee spell attack on a creature within their weapon's reach for a ranged spell attack. The spell's range is also reduced to 5'. If they do so, they gain a bonus to damage rolls from the spell equal to 1/2 of their strength bonus (round up); they can use dexterity bonus instead if their pact weapon is finesse. (note that effects that boost spell range, like spell sniper, can let you do this with a reach weapon intentionally).

For the purpose of Eldrich Smite, these melee spell attacks count as hitting a creature with your pact weapon.
(This ensures that melee attacking does marginally more damage than EB spam, as you can now melee-EB. The +stat/2 encourages you to have some bonus in your weapon's attack stat, which in turn makes level 1/2 with that weapon sort of work.)

3) Pact of the Chain gets +PROF to AC/ATK/DC/Damage on familiar, and +3 HP/warlock class level on it. You can order it to make an attack as a bonus action.
(This is to counterbalance the Blade stuff, and make the familiar remain combat viable at higher levels).

4) Pact of the Book gets to add all of the additional spells from warlock subclasses as spells known, and 1/day can cast any Warlock spell as if it used a spell slot of Warlock level/2 (round up, max 9) by reading it directly out of their book. If the spell is level 6 or above, you must also expend a use of mystic arcanum of that spells' level or above.
(Also to counterbalance blade pact's upgrade; an extra spell/day from the entire warlock selection isn't bad, plus lot more spells known)

---

As an example, a level 9 infernal bladelock with 16 strength does a melee Scorching Ray using a 5th level slot. This does 6 attacks of 2d6+2 fire damage = 54, using charisma as the attack stat.

A 11 level warlock with 20 charisma, 16 dex and a pact dagger using EB does 1d10+7 times 3, or 37.5, in melee.

These are melee spell attacks, so they don't work with paladin-smites, but a specific exception for eldritch smite was added (it is worded differently than divine smite).

[Salmon343]

I wonder if we've forgotten that in 4e we didn't blink an eye when we saw each class use it's primary stat for all it's attacks. Have we considered that hexblade simply revealed the possibility of letting gishes use a casting stat for attacks? Before Hexblade we saw a few builds stretch to get shillelagh just so they can get their primary stat with attacks. If we had more Int casters there would be demand for some dip/feat that makes it possible, and then hexblade wouldn't look so overly powerful. Start with the assumption that we've all been cheated out of a basic attack that uses whatever stat we want, and then judge hexblade

Agreed. I used to be on the side of thinking that level 1 Cha to attacks was OP, until I actually tried making a gish in 5e. Unless you're a paladin (and even then), its difficult to impossible to create a gish that functions well in combat, without making serious sacrifices. You need at least three decent stats, casting stat, attacking stat, and con. While a gish should be worse casters than pure mages, and worse melee attackers than pure martials, the level of compromises a gish has to make is too great, I think. (This is one of the reasons why I'm not a massive fan of half-casters - without a great unique spell-list, the casting dip from progressing at half the rate of full-casters is much too strong I think.)

I think this is the reason why WOTC have pivoted towards giving gishes these options in their subclasses, with the artificer having two subclasses that can attack with INT, albeit at level 3 instead of level 1. Even that isn't a perfect solution I think, as it punishes multiclassers who want to gish effectively, and this whole thing of classes only being fully unique at level 3 just pushes me to start all my games at level 3 anyway.

Note: I did come from 4e, that's the edition my friend started me on when I began roleplaying. It naturally has coloured my opinion - I see no problem with every class being SAD for attacks, and actually prefer it that way as then your stats can be geared closer towards exploration and roleplaying rather than just combat. That same philosophy I think would better serve 5e. Casters get to be SAD, so why can't martials and gishes?

[Tanarii]

Cha to attacks is OP, especially on a arcane nuke primary caster

There are multiple ways to create an effective GISH without primary attack stat = primary casting stat in 5e, especially if Multiclassing and feats are on the table. Even without it there are Valor Bards, Clerics, EKs and ATs.

Bladelocks are not, and are not intended, to be GISH, without some serious investment. Which makes perfect sense, since they are an arcane nuke primary caster. They need a Feat or Multiclassing to do it easily. And even then it's balanced by the fact that they need a different attack stat. Or was.

[diplomancer]

Agreed. I used to be on the side of thinking that level 1 Cha to attacks was OP, until I actually tried making a gish in 5e. Unless you're a paladin (and even then), its difficult to impossible to create a gish that functions well in combat, without making serious sacrifices. You need at least three decent stats, casting stat, attacking stat, and con. While a gish should be worse casters than pure mages, and worse melee attackers than pure martials, the level of compromises a gish has to make is too great, I think. (This is one of the reasons why I'm not a massive fan of half-casters - without a great unique spell-list, the casting dip from progressing at half the rate of full-casters is much too strong I think.)

I think this is the reason why WOTC have pivoted towards giving gishes these options in their subclasses, with the artificer having two subclasses that can attack with INT, albeit at level 3 instead of level 1. Even that isn't a perfect solution I think, as it punishes multiclassers who want to gish effectively, and this whole thing of classes only being fully unique at level 3 just pushes me to start all my games at level 3 anyway.

Note: I did come from 4e, that's the edition my friend started me on when I began roleplaying. It naturally has coloured my opinion - I see no problem with every class being SAD for attacks, and actually prefer it that way as then your stats can be geared closer towards exploration and roleplaying rather than just combat. That same philosophy I think would better serve 5e. Casters get to be SAD, so why can't martials and gishes?

Pure martials, monks excepted, are more SAD than casters, though. It's guishes that really suffer from MADness. The SADdest of all classes is the Rogue.

[Catullus64]

Am I alone in thinking that the fundamental design philosophy of Hexblade is flawed, rather than just the implementation? (Rhetorical question, I know I'm far from alone in that perspective.)

The tone of most posts seems to be "it's perfectly valid for a Warlock to get to make weapon attacks with their Charisma, but how and when they get access to this is the problem." Well hang on there, I still haven't moved past objecting to the first part.

Most seem to take it for granted that if a Warlock player wants to make a melee character, the design objective should be to make it competitive with melee-primary classes in that department, an objective with which I disagree. A melee warlock should be able to contribute well to the hitting-things goals of a party, but they've already got Effectiveness Points in other areas simply by virtue of being warlocks. So when it comes to the actual hitting-things field, they ought to fall behind melee-primary character classes.

Moving Hex Warrior to Pact of the Blade seems like addressing the particular issue of front-loading a specific subclass, by opening the floodgates to a broader issue, which is the dilution of strong class identity.

EDIT: In the time it took me to write this post, people have already commented on the general idea of SAD-attacks and class design, although in the opposite persuasion from me. Seems people are still thinking about this.

[Salmon343]

Pure martials, monks excepted, are more SAD than casters, though. It's guishes that really suffer from MADness. The SADdest of all classes is the Rogue.

That's a rogue exception, IMO. Frontliner martials need strong offensive, defensive, and survival stats. So they need a decent con stat, and strong str or dex stat. For all frontliners bar the rogue, strength beats dex, with higher damage weapons and feats, while some classes like the Barbarian are seriously lacking in their class features if they favour dex over str. Generally only two strong stats are needed, because dex also functions as a defensive stat and heavy armour exists for str favourers, though heavy armour comes with a significant penalty in disadvantage on strength saves. Backliner martials do a little better, as con is less important so they can get away with just a strong dex stat. Rogues are the exception, as they work decently well as skirmishers with solid defensive abilities, so their class features allow them to also favour dex.

Casters are like rogues and martials in this aspect, they only need a strong casting stat, everything else is just gravy. Con may be important for concentration checks, but Warcaster or Resilient: Con generally makes a concentration check a lot less scary. For any check above 10 the problem is probably not the concentration check, but the amount of damage that you just took.

I have been overly broad with my assertion - it's not all martials that are a bit MAD, just the frontliners. But I will say that casters are in the category of the most SAD, joined by rogues and backliner martials. While frontliner martials are minorly MAD, needing higher con than the first category, while gishes and half-casters are pretty MAD, needing a decent casting stat, attacking stat, and CON. There's several assumptions for the final category performing well too - you're either limited to dex, or need heavy armour, and most gishes need to shop around for heavy armour proficiency.

[Chaosmancer]

So, I've done some pretty massive overhauls to the hex blade and the pacts, but I think it really comes down to a few different balance points that we have to be aware of.

Looking at Just Pact Boons alone, with zero invocations, I'd say the balance is like this:

Pact of the Chain
Pact of the Tome
Pact of the Blade

All blade allows is the use of melee weapons, which honestly suck for Warlocks. It is possible to build it well, but you start getting into some weird builds that don't feel like caster builds. And, compare that to getting three cantrips from anywhere and it is a clear choice, but compare that to an invisible flying scout and Chain rocks it.


Now, add in the invocations and the chart shifts to look like this

Tome
Chain
Blade

Blade remains the bottom. Still hard to use melee weapons without dedicating more to that than being a caster. But, Tome know gets to be above Chain for a single reason, Book of Ancient Secrets allowing them to get Find Familiar. It is not as powerful as Chain, but it is most of Chain.


And this leads me to a serious problem with the Pact boons. A Tomelock with Book of Ancient Secrets can copy 80% of the effective strategies of Blade and Chain locks, while also getting the benefits of being a tome lock. It truly makes me want to ban Tomelocks from getting Find Familiar or Shillelagh.

Just to lay out some numbers, Assuming that dex is lower than cha, by 5th level a Bladelock might get 2d8+(2)dex on an attack if they take an invocation, while a Tomelock with Shilelagh and Booming Blade doesn't need any invocations to deal 2d8+cha+rider. It is just too close. And the difference between familiars could be the same thing.

And, following this up, it is only with Tasha's that Tomelocks start getting any other unique invocations, but Chainlock invocations are almost universally less powerful and useful than their counterparts unless you can really take advantage of the increased range of a familiar. Leaving Chainlocks simply not feeling like any invocation is really worth it.

Meanwhile Blade is struggling just to catch up, and must constantly struggle with the fact that E. Blast and Agonizing blast is a superior set-up at most levels. It is only with the addition of Hex Warrior that the Warlock Blade Pact even starts to come close to the others.



So, what did I do? A few things.

First, I put Hex Warrior, all of it, in Blade Pact. If you want armor and weapons and Cha attack, you take that pact. Now, this does make Blade Pact more powerful than the base pacts. In fact, I'd say it is a solid contender (without invocations) to the Chain Pact, gaining better armor and a melee capability in exchange for the high utility of the Familiar.

But now Tome was far weaker without invocations, and so... I folded Book of Ancient Secrets into Tome. Honestly, other than trying to build a Shillelagh Bladelock, everyone who took Tome was always looking to get that invocation anyways. In fact, they usually dropped an invocation immediately at 3rd to take it.

And then, just to make sure that Tome then didn't outshine Chain as well, I rolled voice of the Chain Master into the Chain Pact. A Tomelock isn't better than a Chainlock, whose familiar can attack, and scout anywhere in the same plane of existence.

I also messed around with some invocations, giving all of them more specific invocations. A blade lock can take some fighting style by level 7 for example, or a chain lock can get summoning spells they normally don't have access to.




What then did I do with the Hexblade? Well, I altered it still further. I called them "The Cursed One" and made cursing their speciality. One thing they get is a relatively minor thing that so many people might want, when they drop a creature to 0hp with Hex? They can use their reaction to move Hex to a new target. Making them the master of curses seemed like a solid warlock concept, and then I can play with something like "dark powers" as a Patron.

[Chaosmancer]

Am I alone in thinking that the fundamental design philosophy of Hexblade is flawed, rather than just the implementation? (Rhetorical question, I know I'm far from alone in that perspective.)

The tone of most posts seems to be "it's perfectly valid for a Warlock to get to make weapon attacks with their Charisma, but how and when they get access to this is the problem." Well hang on there, I still haven't moved past objecting to the first part.

Most seem to take it for granted that if a Warlock player wants to make a melee character, the design objective should be to make it competitive with melee-primary classes in that department, an objective with which I disagree. A melee warlock should be able to contribute well to the hitting-things goals of a party, but they've already got Effectiveness Points in other areas simply by virtue of being warlocks. So when it comes to the actual hitting-things field, they ought to fall behind melee-primary character classes.

Moving Hex Warrior to Pact of the Blade seems like addressing the particular issue of front-loading a specific subclass, by opening the floodgates to a broader issue, which is the dilution of strong class identity.

EDIT: In the time it took me to write this post, people have already commented on the general idea of SAD-attacks and class design, although in the opposite persuasion from me. Seems people are still thinking about this.

The issue I find with this is that if being a melee combatant isn't at least as good as what the ranger or barbarian can do, without feats, then the Warlock is frankly stupid to take a blade pact at all.

I mean, let us not forget that a Warlock with Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast is 100% competitive with just about any martial character. Using their casting stat to deal 1/2/3/4d10+cha mod damage on every strike.

Even just offering CHA in melee attacks isn't enough by itself, because then you need to be doing Greataxes and other heavy weapons to even compete with E. Blast until you hit level 12, at which point you are generally looking at

3d10+3d6+(3)cha mod, using a single invocation [let's call this 42 damage] vs 4d6+2d6+(2)cha+(2)cha using two invocations [using the same numbers this gets us 41 damage]

I'm sure I could add another feat or something to help the Bladelock catch up, but they are already at a deficit. So, if you make them even worse, less accurate and even less damage than simply using the cheaper, better, safer combo... Well... what do you expect is going to happen?

It has been pointed out that using E.Blast as a HExblade is still bette than using your blade. It is also worth noting that if you need to grab a feat like Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master then you could just as easily have the Warlock grab Moderately Armored. Keeping Eldritch Blast while adding Medium armor and a Shield can increase their AC to be better than the melee warlock, who has to drop the shield in favor of trying to keep up with the damage.


So yeah, we either need to abandon the idea of a melee warlock entirely, or they need to be good enough that they can at least compete with the most obvious warlock combo in the game.

[Garimeth]

I feel like the only real objection I've heard to doing this is that it makes the first few levels awkward for Hexblade bladelocks. But isn't that also true for Battle Smith artificers? It's not like you spend a lot of time at 1st and 2nd level, anyway, and after 3rd level everything is the same.

TBH, the only real downside I see to this is that you can't take a different pact boon, e.g. on a padlock. The tradeoff is that suddenly non-Hexblade bladelocks are actually viable.

Another benefit of this is that Hexblade becomes a less popular dip, though still fairly potent. You also need to dip at least 3 levels to get the benefits of Hex Warrior, so fewer 1 level dips.

My house rule is that the CHA to hit stuff goes to Pact of the Blade and Pact of the blade gets the medium armor proficiency. Everything else I have left the same. Now hexblade is not the gish choice, its the Hex choice.

[diplomancer]

That's a rogue exception, IMO. Frontliner martials need strong offensive, defensive, and survival stats. So they need a decent con stat, and strong str or dex stat. For all frontliners bar the rogue, strength beats dex, with higher damage weapons and feats, while some classes like the Barbarian are seriously lacking in their class features if they favour dex over str. Generally only two strong stats are needed, because dex also functions as a defensive stat and heavy armour exists for str favourers, though heavy armour comes with a significant penalty in disadvantage on strength saves. Backliner martials do a little better, as con is less important so they can get away with just a strong dex stat. Rogues are the exception, as they work decently well as skirmishers with solid defensive abilities, so their class features allow them to also favour dex.

Casters are like rogues and martials in this aspect, they only need a strong casting stat, everything else is just gravy. Con may be important for concentration checks, but Warcaster or Resilient: Con generally makes a concentration check a lot less scary. For any check above 10 the problem is probably not the concentration check, but the amount of damage that you just took.

I have been overly broad with my assertion - it's not all martials that are a bit MAD, just the frontliners. But I will say that casters are in the category of the most SAD, joined by rogues and backliner martials. While frontliner martials are minorly MAD, needing higher con than the first category, while gishes and half-casters are pretty MAD, needing a decent casting stat, attacking stat, and CON. There's several assumptions for the final category performing well too - you're either limited to dex, or need heavy armour, and most gishes need to shop around for heavy armour proficiency.

While it's true that the Rogue's ranged/skirmishing capabilities make it ok for him to stay at 14 Con, while other melee martials will probably want a 16, I don't think that this makes the melee martials more MAD. See, for me at least, a MAD build is one that requires ASIs for more than one ability. Unless you are going for a weird multiclass build, starting with 2 16s and raising your prime stat is trivial; it's when you have to RAISE more than one stat that difficult decisions start to appear.

In that regard (again, apart from the monk), the only pure martial that would even WANT to raise Con is the Barbarian, both because of Unarmoured Defense, and because Barbarians tank with hit points, for all others a 16 Con is plenty; still, it's perfectly easy to be a Barbarian that starts with 16Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, raise your Str, then start taking feats, relying on Half-Plate or Breastplate for your AC.

Now, consider casters; they want high casting stat more than anything else, true; then they should want at least 14 dex and 14 Con- they might try to get by with a 13 Con on builds that are planning to take Res (Con) somewhat early, but anything lower than that I'd consider unoptimal. Is that necessarily better than the Str Fighter who will start with 16 Str/Con, and can have just a 10 on Dex?

Finally, you are mistaken about Heavy Armour; they only impose a penalty on Stealth checks, not on any saves.

[Catullus64]

The issue I find with this is that if being a melee combatant isn't at least as good as what the ranger or barbarian can do, without feats, then the Warlock is frankly stupid to take a blade pact at all.

I mean, let us not forget that a Warlock with Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast is 100% competitive with just about any martial character. Using their casting stat to deal 1/2/3/4d10+cha mod damage on every strike.

Even just offering CHA in melee attacks isn't enough by itself, because then you need to be doing Greataxes and other heavy weapons to even compete with E. Blast until you hit level 12, at which point you are generally looking at

3d10+3d6+(3)cha mod, using a single invocation [let's call this 42 damage] vs 4d6+2d6+(2)cha+(2)cha using two invocations [using the same numbers this gets us 41 damage]

I'm sure I could add another feat or something to help the Bladelock catch up, but they are already at a deficit. So, if you make them even worse, less accurate and even less damage than simply using the cheaper, better, safer combo... Well... what do you expect is going to happen?

It has been pointed out that using E.Blast as a HExblade is still bette than using your blade. It is also worth noting that if you need to grab a feat like Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master then you could just as easily have the Warlock grab Moderately Armored. Keeping Eldritch Blast while adding Medium armor and a Shield can increase their AC to be better than the melee warlock, who has to drop the shield in favor of trying to keep up with the damage.


So yeah, we either need to abandon the idea of a melee warlock entirely, or they need to be good enough that they can at least compete with the most obvious warlock combo in the game.

Why does melee weapon fighting need to be competitive with Eldritch Blast?

If you want to play a warlock who hurls destruction from a distance, there's Eldritch Blast and associated invocations. If you want to play a warlock who mixes things up with weapon attacks, there's Pact of the Blade and associated invocations. They're not competing for the same niche, the same character fantasy, and thus it doesn't matter nearly as much if one is strictly better than the other, so long as they both clear a certain minimum threshold of functionality (which is almost universally so in 5e.)

Saying that a player is making a poor decision in choosing one option over another only really works if both options fit the character they want to play. If someone wanted to play a tanky fighter, you wouldn't tell them that they'd be tankier as a Moon Druid. (This is not me trying to start a roleplay vs. optimization debate, but rather me trying to define the limits within which I think optimization is even relevant.)

[diplomancer]

So, I've done some pretty massive overhauls to the hex blade and the pacts, but I think it really comes down to a few different balance points that we have to be aware of.

Looking at Just Pact Boons alone, with zero invocations, I'd say the balance is like this:

Pact of the Chain
Pact of the Tome
Pact of the Blade

All blade allows is the use of melee weapons, which honestly suck for Warlocks. It is possible to build it well, but you start getting into some weird builds that don't feel like caster builds. And, compare that to getting three cantrips from anywhere and it is a clear choice, but compare that to an invisible flying scout and Chain rocks it.


Now, add in the invocations and the chart shifts to look like this

Tome
Chain
Blade

Blade remains the bottom. Still hard to use melee weapons without dedicating more to that than being a caster. But, Tome know gets to be above Chain for a single reason, Book of Ancient Secrets allowing them to get Find Familiar. It is not as powerful as Chain, but it is most of Chain.


And this leads me to a serious problem with the Pact boons. A Tomelock with Book of Ancient Secrets can copy 80% of the effective strategies of Blade and Chain locks, while also getting the benefits of being a tome lock. It truly makes me want to ban Tomelocks from getting Find Familiar or Shillelagh.

Just to lay out some numbers, Assuming that dex is lower than cha, by 5th level a Bladelock might get 2d8+(2)dex on an attack if they take an invocation, while a Tomelock with Shilelagh and Booming Blade doesn't need any invocations to deal 2d8+cha+rider. It is just too close. And the difference between familiars could be the same thing.

And, following this up, it is only with Tasha's that Tomelocks start getting any other unique invocations, but Chainlock invocations are almost universally less powerful and useful than their counterparts unless you can really take advantage of the increased range of a familiar. Leaving Chainlocks simply not feeling like any invocation is really worth it.

Meanwhile Blade is struggling just to catch up, and must constantly struggle with the fact that E. Blast and Agonizing blast is a superior set-up at most levels. It is only with the addition of Hex Warrior that the Warlock Blade Pact even starts to come close to the others.



So, what did I do? A few things.

First, I put Hex Warrior, all of it, in Blade Pact. If you want armor and weapons and Cha attack, you take that pact. Now, this does make Blade Pact more powerful than the base pacts. In fact, I'd say it is a solid contender (without invocations) to the Chain Pact, gaining better armor and a melee capability in exchange for the high utility of the Familiar.

But now Tome was far weaker without invocations, and so... I folded Book of Ancient Secrets into Tome. Honestly, other than trying to build a Shillelagh Bladelock, everyone who took Tome was always looking to get that invocation anyways. In fact, they usually dropped an invocation immediately at 3rd to take it.

And then, just to make sure that Tome then didn't outshine Chain as well, I rolled voice of the Chain Master into the Chain Pact. A Tomelock isn't better than a Chainlock, whose familiar can attack, and scout anywhere in the same plane of existence.

I also messed around with some invocations, giving all of them more specific invocations. A blade lock can take some fighting style by level 7 for example, or a chain lock can get summoning spells they normally don't have access to.




What then did I do with the Hexblade? Well, I altered it still further. I called them "The Cursed One" and made cursing their speciality. One thing they get is a relatively minor thing that so many people might want, when they drop a creature to 0hp with Hex? They can use their reaction to move Hex to a new target. Making them the master of curses seemed like a solid warlock concept, and then I can play with something like "dark powers" as a Patron.

While I think your solutions are all good suggestions, I disagree with your evaluation of Tome vs. Chain. I was surprised by the assertion that Tasha's better for Tomes than for Chains; Investment of the Chain Master is A LOT better than the new Tome invocations, it's one of those "build-defining" invocations, unless you're in a campaign where most opponents are immune to the poisoned condition. One failed save and your opponent is poisoned until the end of the combat, no Concentration required? Yes, please! It might fall off at later levels, once the to-hit bonus of the Sprite falls off against AC, but for all of tiers 1&2, it's sufficient, specially once you factor in that the first attack will likely be at Advantage due to invisibility.

The other objection I have is to looking at the power level of the Boons in abstract; Tome is probably the best if there's no Wizard in the party, but it greatly falls off compared to Chain otherwise.

I do agree with your evaluations of the Blade pact.

[Garimeth]

snip

I have to say, I find your analysis of not only the pacts, but the benefit of going Blade pact at all to be spot on.

In terms of melee ability, a bladelock needs to be the equivalent in effectiveness of a paladin or swords bard to be worth choosing over Tome, because Tome is so freaking good.

[Salmon343]

While it's true that the Rogue's ranged/skirmishing capabilities make it ok for him to stay at 14 Con, while other melee martials will probably want a 16, I don't think that this makes the melee martials more MAD. See, for me at least, a MAD build is one that requires ASIs for more than one ability. Unless you are going for a weird multiclass build, starting with 2 16s and raising your prime stat is trivial; it's when you have to RAISE more than one stat that difficult decisions start to appear.

In that regard (again, apart from the monk), the only pure martial that would even WANT to raise Con is the Barbarian, both because of Unarmoured Defense, and because Barbarians tank with hit points, for all others a 16 Con is plenty; still, it's perfectly easy to be a Barbarian that starts with 16Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, raise your Str, then start taking feats, relying on Half-Plate or Breastplate for your AC.

Now, consider casters; they want high casting stat more than anything else, true; then they should want at least 14 dex and 14 Con- they might try to get by with a 13 Con on builds that are planning to take Res (Con) somewhat early, but anything lower than that I'd consider unoptimal. Is that necessarily better than the Str Fighter who will start with 16 Str/Con, and can have just a 10 on Dex?

Finally, you are mistaken about Heavy Armour; they only impose a penalty on Stealth checks, not on any saves.

In reverse order - (3) yep, should've double checked my post there, disadvantage on stealth checks.

(2) Let's examine the caster vs str martial spread under point buy. Say we have +2/+1 to dish out. (Did the maths mostly in my head so we're using 10 as a cost of +0 here. All the comparisons are based on the difference in invested points, so it doesn't really matter whether 10 or 8 is +0.)

For simplicity, let's assume that the +2 goes to the main casting stat, or strength, and the +1 goes to Con or Dex. So for the martial we need 15 Con, which is worth 7 points, and the caster needs 14 Dex and 13 Con, which is worth 8 points. So they're roughly equivalent, with the strength martial winning out, but only by a single point. Meanwhile, with heavy armour we've got disadvantage on Stealth checks, which isn't necessarily worth that extra point, and there's also a cost requirement which means that there's a level/adventuring delay for that AC to reach its full potential. This can be equated to a level delay needed for the caster to gain that extra bonus to concentration checks via a feat, though I think the AC and con save combination for the caster would then outweigh the AC and hp combination for the str martial, considering battle roles and placement.

I'm also not 100% sure on the assumptions of optimal play here. 14 Dex and 14 Con is pretty good for a caster, but I'd consider that a moderately tanky caster short of finagling your build into armour of some kind. That feels to me like a particular style of build, which I wouldn't consider to be optimal in the sense that anything worse was suboptimal. Additionally, I generally go for 14 Con rather than 16 Con as fairly decent for a melee fighter, and prefer bumping up other stats that I'd later grab save proficiency in, or use for skills and rounding out the character more. Though I do prefer building well rounded characters that usually fit some kind of theme, so we might need more voices to decide what's actually optimal and expected before diving further into the numbers.

(1) I disagree with that definition of MAD. To me, a MAD character is one that has to invest in lots of different stats to a moderate degree, or more than one stat to a high degree, such that it constrains the build. The ASI definition is one example of this - an ASI you have to pump into an extra stat means being less great at your primary stat, or not being able to pick up more feats. Another example is multiclassing.

For example, a build idea that I have is a Kensai Bladesinger multiclass. That needs 13 int and 13 wis for the multiclassing requirements, and further has dex as a primary stat and con needs to be decent, as it's meant to be a melee gish. Unless stunning strike is used heavily, the wis stat doesn't need to be any higher than 13 (rounded out to 14 for the modifier bump), as mage armour is equivalent to 16 wis for unarmoured defense - so that 13 wis is only necessary for multiclassing. That's 3 points that could've gone elsewhere, which is anywhere between 1 and 3 modifier bumps. Another example is a paladin bladesinger multiclass, which I've often wanted to play as a hard hitting but fairly mobile magic warrior, but is virtually impossible to build well without multiclassing, as it requires 13 in a whopping 4 stats. These build ideas are constrained by the stats, which makes them MAD.

[diplomancer]

What about keeping Hexblades with shield and weapons proficiency, but moving the Medium Armor proficiency and Cha to weapon attacks to Pact of the Blade? Hexblades are still highly recommended if you want to focus on weapons (while still useful if you are planning to be a more traditional Warlock), Pact of the Blade still works decently with the other Patrons if you are going 2-Handed.

[Chaosmancer]

Why does melee weapon fighting need to be competitive with Eldritch Blast?

If you want to play a warlock who hurls destruction from a distance, there's Eldritch Blast and associated invocations. If you want to play a warlock who mixes things up with weapon attacks, there's Pact of the Blade and associated invocations. They're not competing for the same niche, the same character fantasy, and thus it doesn't matter nearly as much if one is strictly better than the other, so long as they both clear a certain minimum threshold of functionality (which is almost universally so in 5e.)

Saying that a player is making a poor decision in choosing one option over another only really works if both options fit the character they want to play. If someone wanted to play a tanky fighter, you wouldn't tell them that they'd be tankier as a Moon Druid. (This is not me trying to start a roleplay vs. optimization debate, but rather me trying to define the limits within which I think optimization is even relevant.)

Because every melee fighter with even an inch of foresight takes a ranged attack option. Just like every ranged character takes at least one melee attack option.

So, they are going to, at level 1 take E. Blast. Then, at level 2, the first invocation they will see is an obvious and simple buff to their primary attack. Now, at level 3 they have a choice.

They, a lightly armored spell caster with an incredible ranged attack can either take a melee weapon that is inferior in every way to their primary attack strategy, which even if they invest heavily in will be obviously inferior unless they have a higher Dex or Strength than their casting stat (as a full caster).

Or they can not invest anymore resources into combat and just not take melee weapons. Because remember, we are talking about just pact of the blade per RAW here, so at level three you could give up an invisible flying scout or a more magic for the choice to swing a sword poorly.

And, you may be looking at my earlier claim, what about having a melee option? Isn't that what this is for? No. That's what shocking grasp is for. 1d8, advantage against armored foes. Or Poison Spray, 1d12 con save. Or if you go tome you could take Primal Savagery for 1d10 Acid. I believe they also have Toll of the Dead which is 1d12 on a Wis save.

All of which is perfectly serviceable, with a minor dip in damage or equal damage to using a longsword when you have a +2 str or a Rapier when you have a +2 Dex.

[Chaosmancer]

While I think your solutions are all good suggestions, I disagree with your evaluation of Tome vs. Chain. I was surprised by the assertion that Tasha's better for Tomes than for Chains; Investment of the Chain Master is A LOT better than the new Tome invocations, it's one of those "build-defining" invocations, unless you're in a campaign where most opponents are immune to the poisoned condition. One failed save and your opponent is poisoned until the end of the combat, no Concentration required? Yes, please! It might fall off at later levels, once the to-hit bonus of the Sprite falls off against AC, but for all of tiers 1&2, it's sufficient, specially once you factor in that the first attack will likely be at Advantage due to invisibility.

The other objection I have is to looking at the power level of the Boons in abstract; Tome is probably the best if there's no Wizard in the party, but it greatly falls off compared to Chain otherwise.

I do agree with your evaluations of the Blade pact.

I do tend to forget about Investment of the Chain Master. I've gone back and forth on it many times because some of the benefits are very... I don't want to say niche, but they overlap too much.

For example, 40 fly speed is generally worthless. It helps the Quasit and that is it. The Save DC boost is incredible for the Sprite, but much harder to use for the Imp and the Pseudodragon, since it requires going into melee. Resistance to damage isn't even going to help, since their HP is usually low.

It can be build defining, and it is likely better than I want to think about it because I see so many abilities that could have been better instead, I'm just not fully convinced of it yet.

And Tome did get some amazing invocations. Some that are just flat out good even with a Wizard. A free Death Ward potentially covering a number of targets (only one benefits, but you can avoid casting it on one person only to have a different one drop. Infinite Free Sending to prof targets? Both of those are very good.


But, I think this just shows that Tome and Chain are fairly close as written. Arguments can be made. There is no argument for Blade Pact outside of Hex Warrior.

[Tanarii]

In terms of melee ability, a bladelock needs to be the equivalent in effectiveness of a paladin or swords bard to be worth choosing over Tome, because Tome is so freaking good.

The thinking they need to be equal to Paladins or other primary melee is how we ended up with OP Hexblades in the first place.

Warlocks are full casters. They're arcane nuke full casters to boot. They should never be the melee equivalent of a primary melee martial without sacrificing core abilities, like being a full caster.

[Catullus64]

Because every melee fighter with even an inch of foresight takes a ranged attack option. Just like every ranged character takes at least one melee attack option.

So, they are going to, at level 1 take E. Blast. Then, at level 2, the first invocation they will see is an obvious and simple buff to their primary attack. Now, at level 3 they have a choice.

They, a lightly armored spell caster with an incredible ranged attack can either take a melee weapon that is inferior in every way to their primary attack strategy, which even if they invest heavily in will be obviously inferior unless they have a higher Dex or Strength than their casting stat (as a full caster).

Or they can not invest anymore resources into combat and just not take melee weapons. Because remember, we are talking about just pact of the blade per RAW here, so at level three you could give up an invisible flying scout or a more magic for the choice to swing a sword poorly.

Eldritch Blast, even if it did 4d10+20 damage per beam and turned targets into frogs with no save, would still be categorically inferior to Pact of the Blade in the department of being a sword. And some people want to swing a sword. And be a Warlock at the same time. It's only "obviously" superior if damage output matters more than playstyle and theme to the player in question; if so, that's valid for that player, but it doesn't make an option bad just because it doesn't measure up to that very specific criterion. The number of assumptions in your post about a player's priorities is significant.

You're asserting that an option that deals less damage than another is a useless option, to which I reply, not if it gains something in return that the higher-damage option lacks. And what Eldritch Blast lacks is the fantasy of wielding a weapon in battle.

[Chaosmancer]

Eldritch Blast, even if it did 4d10+20 damage per beam and turned targets into frogs with no save, would still be categorically inferior to Pact of the Blade in the department of being a sword. And some people want to swing a sword. And be a Warlock at the same time. It's only "obviously" superior if damage output matters more than playstyle and theme to the player in question; if so, that's valid for that player, but it doesn't make an option bad just because it doesn't measure up to that very specific criterion. The number of assumptions in your post about a player's priorities is significant.

You're asserting that an option that deals less damage than another is a useless option, to which I reply, not if it gains something in return that the higher-damage option lacks. And what Eldritch Blast lacks is the fantasy of wielding a weapon in battle.

Why yes, it does do less well at the job of being a sword, I never thought of that.

However, if your fantasy is about wielding a weapon in battle, you want to be at least decent at it. And RAW original Bladelocks aren't, unless they sacrifice being Warlocks in exchange. You know, I've had people who wanted to be martial arts, unarmed masters with their monks and at level 1, maybe they try, but by level 2 they are using a quarterstaff. Because it is very hard to sit there staring at a more effective option and tell yourself not to take it. If the battle matters, if it is a life or death situation, are you really going to use subpar tools?

How about instead of making everyone who wants to be a warlock with a sword choose to suddenly become less effective at level 3, we let them... be effective. Cha as an attack stat alone still doesn't make them better than using Eldritch Blast, it still would be the more optimal solution, but it least you aren't as far behind the curve.

[diplomancer]

I do tend to forget about Investment of the Chain Master. I've gone back and forth on it many times because some of the benefits are very... I don't want to say niche, but they overlap too much.

For example, 40 fly speed is generally worthless. It helps the Quasit and that is it. The Save DC boost is incredible for the Sprite, but much harder to use for the Imp and the Pseudodragon, since it requires going into melee. Resistance to damage isn't even going to help, since their HP is usually low.

It can be build defining, and it is likely better than I want to think about it because I see so many abilities that could have been better instead, I'm just not fully convinced of it yet.

And Tome did get some amazing invocations. Some that are just flat out good even with a Wizard. A free Death Ward potentially covering a number of targets (only one benefits, but you can avoid casting it on one person only to have a different one drop. Infinite Free Sending to prof targets? Both of those are very good.


But, I think this just shows that Tome and Chain are fairly close as written. Arguments can be made. There is no argument for Blade Pact outside of Hex Warrior.

I think Investment of the Chain Master was an elegant way to "equalize" the Chain familiar forms. The one that gets the least from it is the Imp (who was the best before it), the other three all get something good from it that mostly puts them slightly better than the pre-invocation Imp. And since you can always choose different forms by recasting the spell, the added versatility brings with it a considerable power boost.

[Garimeth]

The thinking they need to be equal to Paladins or other primary melee is how we ended up with OP Hexblades in the first place.

Warlocks are full casters. They're arcane nuke full casters to boot. They should never be the melee equivalent of a primary melee martial without sacrificing core abilities, like being a full caster.

The thing is... I don't think Hexblades are OP outside of multiclassing capabilities. Are they good? Sure, in general, but melee hexblades, as Chaosmancer has shown quite well, are inferior to EB hexblades in almost every way. On top of that, it requires more invocation and ASI taxes to be less competitive than just taking EB, Agonig Blast, and one level of Hexblade.

The solution, IMO, is to separate the capabilities of Hexblade to be partially with Pact of the Blade. Now every Patron can gish.

Second, I would either reduce the invocation tax, OR I would reduce casting effectiveness.

I just don't see melee hexblades as OP, there are a ton of other builds I would put way ahead of them. Granted, none of my players have played one yet, so I'm open to being shown I'm wrong, but on paper and in thought exercises I'm just not seeing it.

[Chaosmancer]

The thing is... I don't think Hexblades are OP outside of multiclassing capabilities. Are they good? Sure, in general, but melee hexblades, as Chaosmancer has shown quite well, are inferior to EB hexblades in almost every way. On top of that, it requires more invocation and ASI taxes to be less competitive than just taking EB, Agonig Blast, and one level of Hexblade.

The solution, IMO, is to separate the capabilities of Hexblade to be partially with Pact of the Blade. Now every Patron can gish.

Second, I would either reduce the invocation tax, OR I would reduce casting effectiveness.

I just don't see melee hexblades as OP, there are a ton of other builds I would put way ahead of them. Granted, none of my players have played one yet, so I'm open to being shown I'm wrong, but on paper and in thought exercises I'm just not seeing it.

One thing I was shown, that might be close to OP is at 12th level, with Polearm Master, Lifedrinker, and Thirsting Blade.

Lifedrinker lets you double dip Cha, so assuming 20 cha, you'd be doing 2d10+1d4+30 on a normal round. That's an average of 43.5?

But, a paladin with Polearm Master and a 20 strength gets 2d10+1d4+3d8+15 which is an average of... 42? So it is right in there, and that is a pretty heft lean at a pretty high level to just barely match up.

[jas61292]

Pacts shouldn't be trivial upgrades.

I think the crux of the issue is that... yes, actually they should be. Pacts boons are not the subclass. Patrons are. And, as written, the pact boons actually are all pretty trivial. What is not trivial are the invocations that have pact boons as their prerequisite.

A couple cantrips. Weapon proficiency and summoning. A minor bonus to a few skill checks. All minor. The only one that is not really minor is pact of the chain, and debatably even that is only really an incredibly minor bonus to scouting unless you pick up the Voice of the Chain master.

For some reason people act like these are all massive things and that pact of the blade needs to, by itself, turn your character into a gish to be on par. That is complete nonsense, and would drastically overpower the pact. Now, if you think that you should be able to become a gish with the pact AND the appropriate invocations, than sure, I have no issue with that. Maybe armor proficiency needs to be woven into one of the invocations. But the pact boon itself is more than fine without it.

And, for what its worth, Charisma for attacks is just bad design, in my opinion. Physical stats are for martial combat, mental stats are for magic. Valor and Swords Bards do both, and they need both physical and mental stats. Bladesingers do both, and they need both physical and mental stats. Even Rangers, Paladins, Eldritich Knights and Arcane Tricksters need both physical and mental stats if they want to be good at both martial and magical combat. So why should the Warlock be an exception? Its bad design, and never should have been introduced as a rule (and that goes just as much for the Artificer Subclass as it does for Hexblade).

[Garimeth]

One thing I was shown, that might be close to OP is at 12th level, with Polearm Master, Lifedrinker, and Thirsting Blade.

Lifedrinker lets you double dip Cha, so assuming 20 cha, you'd be doing 2d10+1d4+30 on a normal round. That's an average of 43.5?

But, a paladin with Polearm Master and a 20 strength gets 2d10+1d4+3d8+15 which is an average of... 42? So it is right in there, and that is a pretty heft lean at a pretty high level to just barely match up.

Yeah, and that's kind of my point. It's good, but not OP. And a paladin can also throw a smite on every one of those, for more than just one round.

And again, for the investment of one cantrip and one ASI:

4d10+20, and if you add hex, +4d6 - one more hex than melee, all from the safety of range.

I think the crux of it boils down to, is it worth taking over the EB focused build? And I think the answer is, usually, no - unless its just because that's what you want to play - which is cool. But I certainly don't think its OP. In fact, I move the features to Pact of the blade, not because hexblade is OP, but because I want to let my players gish somewhat effectively as other patrons too.

[Greywander]

Bladelocks can be competitive with paladins as far as damage output goes; Lifedrinker is equivalent to Improved Divine Smite, and Eldritch Smite gives them similar smiting ability. Damage is only one small part of each class, though, as paladins get half casting, auras, Lay on Hands, and Channel Divinity, while warlocks get their pact magic and invocations. Even with similar damage, they're still very different classes and each have their pros and cons. Point is, the warlock isn't invalidating the paladin here, even with Hex Warrior.

The warlock is primarily a caster, and has little reason to ever boost STR, and only needs enough DEX for AC. Without Hex Warrior, a bladelock would be pretty much forced into a DEX build, which would limit which weapons they could use, and delaying boosting their CHA will hurt their spellcasting and the benefit from Lifedrinker. Hex Warrior fixes all this, granting medium armor so only 14 DEX is needed and allowing them to focus on CHA. It works better than it would for a regular full caster because warlocks don't get a lot of spell slots, so using CHA for both weapons and spells isn't as powerful as it would be on other casters (though compare Battle Smith artificer and druids with Shillelagh; none of these are overpowered, they just make less optimal builds viable).

[Garimeth]

Bladelocks can be competitive with paladins as far as damage output goes; Lifedrinker is equivalent to Improved Divine Smite, and Eldritch Smite gives them similar smiting ability. Damage is only one small part of each class, though, as paladins get half casting, auras, Lay on Hands, and Channel Divinity, while warlocks get their pact magic and invocations. Even with similar damage, they're still very different classes and each have their pros and cons. Point is, the warlock isn't invalidating the paladin here, even with Hex Warrior.

The warlock is primarily a caster, and has little reason to ever boost STR, and only needs enough DEX for AC. Without Hex Warrior, a bladelock would be pretty much forced into a DEX build, which would limit which weapons they could use, and delaying boosting their CHA will hurt their spellcasting and the benefit from Lifedrinker. Hex Warrior fixes all this, granting medium armor so only 14 DEX is needed and allowing them to focus on CHA. It works better than it would for a regular full caster because warlocks don't get a lot of spell slots, so using CHA for both weapons and spells isn't as powerful as it would be on other casters (though compare Battle Smith artificer and druids with Shillelagh; none of these are overpowered, they just make less optimal builds viable).

I agree. IMO the primary benefit of moving where hex warrior is attained to pact of the blade is that now if someone multiclasses they have to take three levels to get it AND, more importanly because I don't care about multiclass shenanigans, other Warlock patrons can now gish as well.

Making it pact of the blade means all the following are possible:

A pseudo paladin with celestial patron and eldritch smite.
A Fey patron duelist build.
A vaguely swashbuckly genie build. (Aladdin?)
A fiendlock that can be equal parts blasty and slashy.
A Fathoms lock that is a pirate using a cutlass or scimitar effectively.

There are many others. Leaving Hex Warrior's armor profs and CHA stuff on hexblade makes the only one of those that seems remotely appealing the Fiendlock, and melee hexblade is definitely not OP.

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, and that's kind of my point. It's good, but not OP. And a paladin can also throw a smite on every one of those, for more than just one round.

And again, for the investment of one cantrip and one ASI:

4d10+20, and if you add hex, +4d6 - one more hex than melee, all from the safety of range.

I think the crux of it boils down to, is it worth taking over the EB focused build? And I think the answer is, usually, no - unless its just because that's what you want to play - which is cool. But I certainly don't think its OP. In fact, I move the features to Pact of the blade, not because hexblade is OP, but because I want to let my players gish somewhat effectively as other patrons too.

Exactly. A Fiend patron used to be the only strong contender for bladelock, because they were tanky. But GOO was never good for it. And we should be allowed to make this decision.

And, for those other people reading this. The decision is between "Summoner" "Melee" or "More Magic" and the brutal truth is that without Cha to attack, the melee option has only one thing to make it worthwhile. It lets you pretend that you can go into melee.

Let's play this game. 3rd level, Dex 14 Cha 16. Do you take pact of the Blade or grab the spell Shadow Blade.

Pact of the Blade allows you to make a rapier and attack at +4 for 1d8+2, average of 6.5. Shadow Blade allows you to attack at +4 for 2d8 damage, average of 9, and you could have a different pact boon.

Fast forward to level 9. Pact of the blade is spicy with +6 and 2d8+4 (13) (you bumped charisma, you are a full caster after all) and Shadow Blade is +6 for 4d8 (18)

A single spell is better than the Pact of the Blade using dex. And that is not counting Shadow Blade getting advantage or also being a ranged option because you can throw it.

So, even if your concept is "I want to attack in melee" unless it is specifically "I want to attack in melee with a physical weapon and not a melee spell" you are better off wit an option other than Pact of the Blade per RAW.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bladelocks can be competitive with paladins as far as damage output goes; Lifedrinker is equivalent to Improved Divine Smite, and Eldritch Smite gives them similar smiting ability. Damage is only one small part of each class, though, as paladins get half casting, auras, Lay on Hands, and Channel Divinity, while warlocks get their pact magic and invocations. Even with similar damage, they're still very different classes and each have their pros and cons. Point is, the warlock isn't invalidating the paladin here, even with Hex Warrior.

The warlock is primarily a caster, and has little reason to ever boost STR, and only needs enough DEX for AC. Without Hex Warrior, a bladelock would be pretty much forced into a DEX build, which would limit which weapons they could use, and delaying boosting their CHA will hurt their spellcasting and the benefit from Lifedrinker. Hex Warrior fixes all this, granting medium armor so only 14 DEX is needed and allowing them to focus on CHA. It works better than it would for a regular full caster because warlocks don't get a lot of spell slots, so using CHA for both weapons and spells isn't as powerful as it would be on other casters (though compare Battle Smith artificer and druids with Shillelagh; none of these are overpowered, they just make less optimal builds viable).

Completely agree

[Warlush]

It's effectively giving Hex Warrior for free to every 'lock, since most will take blade given the benefits. I mean, if you think that's balanced, just give it to all warlocks at level 3, don't tie it to a boon.

No. Just no. There really are elements to the game besides damage. I understand that I'm on an optimization forum, but can't we also optimize fun?

[WaroftheCrans]

Greywander touched upon it already, but one of the reasons why warlocks are perceived as needing casting stat for attack is that unlike swords bards, valor bards or bladesingers is that they need 4 stats to be viable: and this is because of issues with a.c. Both of the bard subclasses get medium armor and features that bolster a.c., while encouraging sword and board with a rapier. Bladesingers can just straight up add their int to a.c. (And later to attack) and optimally use few weapons. Bladelocks on the other hand can only use light armor, with nothing to help ac and the optimal weapons for them to keep up in damage and maximize efficiency is big two handed strength weapons. So they need at least a 16 in dex so they don't get obliterated, at least a 16 in con to compensate for poor ac, at least a 16 in cha as it's their casting stat, and at least a 16 in strength so they can actually hit.

With medium armor and a shield, it becomes more acceptable to go d8 weapon sword and board, allowing them to drop con a bit and focus on strength or dexterity instead of needing both. Also putting the attack stat to cha means they can drop strength entirely and put dexterity in the backseat.

I think that instead of moving both parts of hex warrior over to blade, it should be one half and maybe a fighting style to shore it out as an invocation. I don't think it would break things by any means to move both to blade, but I feel it's more balanced with one or the other: offensive mad mitigation or defensive mad mitigation.

The pull to move the charisma attack may be to offset the 1 level dip, as while the curse and proficiencies are respectable, other 1 level dips accomplish similar.