What build should have been good, but wasn't?

[RSP]

19 AC with half-plate actually. And again, if you're really playing at such a lethal table (I have never seen anyone describe 18-19 AC as low in 5e), use Darkness + Devil's Sight for perma-dodge and perma-advantage.

It’s not just the AC though. It’s a lack of frontline abilities for defense.

Darkness+Devils Sight doesn’t work in group play as nice in white room discussions: you’re “defensive ability” is impacting all your fellow party mates negatively.

And the biggest problem is for all T2, you’re playing the “should I use this ability” guessing game because you have at most 2 combats you can use this ability, yet you never know how many combats will actually occur. If you use the slot on an easy encounter, you then don’t have it for the Hard one later.

Plus, it’s the ONLY option. You can’t be a Gish really with this build, because you HAVE to use your casting ability this way. You can’t drop a Sickening Radiance or Hypnotic Pattern, and go fight in melee, because you’re only able to do that with this one strategy.

The issue with the build is it’s selling point is “you’re able to fight in melee and be a caster” while it just locks you into a subpar playstyle as a one trick pony; and it’s not even a good trick.

They're also perfectly viable from range due to EB whenever the front line might be especially dangerous for some reason.

And here in is part of the problem: wanting to make a melee gish, but having to stay in the back “whenever the frontline might be especially dangerous” is exactly the opposite of what a melee frontliner should be doing.

This isn’t an example of the build working, as you suggest; but rather, is another example of why the build doesn’t work as advertised.

[Psyren]

It’s not just the AC though. It’s a lack of frontline abilities for defense.

Darkness+Devils Sight doesn’t work in group play as nice in white room discussions: you’re “defensive ability” is impacting all your fellow party mates negatively.

Skill issue; Darkness is only a 3 square radius, and you can anchor it to a stowable object to completely remove it from play as an interaction if needed. And again, the vast majority of tables don't even need this combo in order to make 19 AC viable on the frontline. Skrum plays higher-lethality tables than most.

And the biggest problem is for all T2, you’re playing the “should I use this ability” guessing game because you have at most 2 combats you can use this ability, yet you never know how many combats will actually occur. If you use the slot on an easy encounter, you then don’t have it for the Hard one later.

You know you can just... see if your 19 AC feels easily hit or not before doing this right? That's a pretty easy way to tell if you're in an Easy encounter without guessing. Again, unless you're playing at a ridiculously lethal table, you can take a round of hits and then assess your defense accordingly. I can't speak for your games, but most DMs aren't going around one-shotting 19 AC players.

[Telok]

This isn’t an example of the build working, as you suggest; but rather, is another example of why the build doesn’t work as advertised.

To be fair, the 5e version of "the build working" is a bar so low that a medium armor sword & board champion fighter with 15s in all stats only taking asi to keep all stats as even as possible is "working ok" by some people's standards. If a build can survive easy fights, contribute baseline 1d8+3 per tier damage for three rounds in other fights, and roll ability checks outside combat, then it is technically "working" by system standards. That its a crappy character which fails as an advertised "good frontliner with good noncombat abilities" is also true.

[Crusher]

I'm not saying they're useless - yes, you're still a full caster and thus quite powerful. But past low levels, you might as well be a Land or Stars druid if all you're going to be is a slightly sturdier full caster who is better off avoiding melee. Thus the subclass just feels like wasted potential.

Sure, I get you're saying that and I certainly agree the Spore Druid isn't a "good" melee option 1-20. But I feel like it mostly achieves its design goals in that the character is significantly tankier (in tier 4 you're popping up 60+ temp hp at a time and immune to crits plus a bunch of status effects through Fungal Body), does good melee damage at lower levels (+1d6/melee attack is borderline OP at low levels, a rogue dual-wielding shortswords only passes you in dps at level 7), and has mechanical reasons to want to be in melee (creating zombies as a reaction is fun, and Halo of Spores is a free 2d4-2d10 necrotic damage every round as a reaction).

I've played one (albeit multiclassed as a Kensai Monk, no the DM didn't let me apply bonus damage on unarmed attacks) and I'd admit its a little clunkier than I'd hoped, mostly Symbiotic Entity taking a full action to activate is irksome.

Maybe its more a semantics point than anything else. The subclasses mechanics mostly point in the right direction, they just only partially achieve the goal (you have reasons to want to be in melee, and you're certainly better there than a Stars druid would be, but you don't scale well and the value you add there drops steadily as levels go up) rather than being outright "bad". I think having Symbiotic Entity be slightly weaker but eventually activatable as a bonus action would have helped a lot.

[RSP]

Skill issue; Darkness is only a 3 square radius, and you can anchor it to a stowable object to completely remove it from play as an interaction if needed. And again, the vast majority of tables don't even need this combo in order to make 19 AC viable on the frontline. Skrum plays higher-lethality tables than most.



You know you can just... see if your 19 AC feels easily hit or not before doing this right? That's a pretty easy way to tell if you're in an Easy encounter without guessing. Again, unless you're playing at a ridiculously lethal table, you can take a round of hits and then assess your defense accordingly. I can't speak for your games, but most DMs aren't going around one-shotting 19 AC players.

I’m not Skrum. I don’t care about anything going on with you or Skrum. My arguments have nothing to do with Skrum or their tables.

I’m posting on MY EXPERIENCES with this build and why I believe it fits the criteria of this thread.

If you’d like to discuss what I’m posting, please refer to what I’m actually posting.

You essentially stated whwn combat gets tough, they can sit in the back and EB. That completely undermines why you would make frontline combatant; and very much supports what I’m saying: they aren’t able to withstand combat in the frontlines.

To be fair, the 5e version of "the build working" is a bar so low that a medium armor sword & board champion fighter with 15s in all stats only taking asi to keep all stats as even as possible is "working ok" by some people's standards. If a build can survive easy fights, contribute baseline 1d8+3 per tier damage for three rounds in other fights, and roll ability checks outside combat, then it is technically "working" by system standards. That its a crappy character which fails as an advertised "good frontliner with good noncombat abilities" is also true.

I don’t believe this thread is operating on these standards, though. It’s asking what builds under perform what they’re supposedly good at: Hexblade, to me, fills that criteria.

[Theodoxus]

I’m posting on MY EXPERIENCES with this build and why I believe it fits the criteria of this thread.

I see where you're coming from. And my experiences with a Hexblade in AL from 1 to 6 isn't dissimilar - but I also didn't try to play it as a frontlining tank. Fortunately, most of the time, I was paired with a Conquest Paladin, so I ended up using reach weapons to stay out of melee range.

I think the Hexblade in particular fills the niche of switchhitter. They're a melee and ranged skirmisher, not a tanker. They have neither the HP to absorb, nor the AC to mitigate, nor Damager Resistance to negate incoming damage. If you're trying to be the single frontliner, a Hexblade is going to have a very hard time competing. Maybe if paired with a Life Cleric dedicated to keeping you up... but then, the Cleric would also probably have better AC at the very least... so offtanking would be more viable.

I think this again goes back to my point - there are really very few bad builds; just builds that don't work well in a specific party or campaign.

[RSP]

I see where you're coming from. And my experiences with a Hexblade in AL from 1 to 6 isn't dissimilar - but I also didn't try to play it as a frontlining tank. Fortunately, most of the time, I was paired with a Conquest Paladin, so I ended up using reach weapons to stay out of melee range.

I think the Hexblade in particular fills the niche of switchhitter. They're a melee and ranged skirmisher, not a tanker. They have neither the HP to absorb, nor the AC to mitigate, nor Damager Resistance to negate incoming damage. If you're trying to be the single frontliner, a Hexblade is going to have a very hard time competing. Maybe if paired with a Life Cleric dedicated to keeping you up... but then, the Cleric would also probably have better AC at the very least... so offtanking would be more viable.

I think this again goes back to my point - there are really very few bad builds; just builds that don't work well in a specific party or campaign.

Hexblade is based on bonding a sentient weapon. I mean it’s not called “HexBlast”, it’s “Hexblade”.

It gets advantageous abilities, just not ones that actually let it survive the front lines, which is what the thinking is. You seem to agree.

It’s not that it’s a bad subclass, but it fits the criteria of “should be good, but isn’t.”

(Side note: if you go to my original post, I even stated that it’s only not good at being the frontliner it’s made out to be.)

[Psyren]

You essentially stated whwn combat gets tough, they can sit in the back and EB.

Please discuss what I'm saying. I said that if you're in a combat so unreasonably lethal that 19 AC is considered low, then range is probably your best option, and Hexblades are just as viable at that. That is not most tables, and so nothing is undermined. It was purely advice for outliers like yours.

I don’t believe this thread is operating on these standards, though. It’s asking what builds under perform what they’re supposedly good at: Hexblade, to me, fills that criteria.

And I disagree. Hexblade appears underwhelming because its subclass features from 6 onward are situational, but the base class chassis more than makes up for that. You can ignore everything from the subclass at 6th level onward and still have not just a viable character, but a strong one.

[RSP]

Please discuss what I'm saying. I said that if you're in a combat so unreasonably lethal that 19 AC is considered low, then range is probably your best option, and Hexblades are just as viable at that. That is not most tables, and so nothing is undermined. It was purely advice for outliers like yours.

You’re the one who unnecessarily cited Skrum while quoting me.

AC 19 is not a force field of invulnerability. It doesn’t mean “you’ll never get hit”. AC 19, in and of itself, is not enough to be in melee full time. And, keep in mind, having a shield and weapon means no casting S, M spells without Warcaster.

So just to operate as you suggest requires a feat (and it’s still not good enough for full time melee play).

For the record, my table runs the premade WotC adventures, so my experience has nothing to do with overly deadly combats (which for some reason you want to attribute to me). Hexblade doesn’t hold up as you get into T2. Like I said, I think it’s got fine abilities, just not for being in melee consistently. It’s fine at level 6 but the further in T2, the more you either drop in combat, or need to stand away from melee and EB.

[Crusher]

Hexblade is based on bonding a sentient weapon. I mean it’s not called “HexBlast”, it’s “Hexblade”.

It gets advantageous abilities, just not ones that actually let it survive the front lines, which is what the thinking is. You seem to agree.

It’s not that it’s a bad subclass, but it fits the criteria of “should be good, but isn’t.”

(Side note: if you go to my original post, I even stated that it’s only not good at being the frontliner it’s made out to be.)

I think a lot of this comes down to expectations. Being a Hexblade makes a warlock relatively good at fighting in melee. I think this is true, particularly if they go Blade Pact. It does not, however, mean a Hexblade is as a good frontliner as a Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin who is built to be a frontliner. Which doesn't seem unreasonable, they didn't have to give up their spellcasting (the value of which varies enormously on a campaign's ration of short rests to long-rests) to do it.

That doesn't strike me so much as a design problem or bad build as a failure of communication as to the intended role of a Hexblade. And that's tricky, because the potential for campaigns and party construction is endless, so its really hard to give hard and fast explanations. In a campaign based around heists and everyone else is Rogues and Wizards, a Hexblade might be perfectly adequate as a frontliner. But, they definitely could have done a better job of, in a vacuum, clarifying how they saw each subclass operating. Like, its not *necessarily* a mistake that Hexblades are more effective standing back and blasting than meleeing people, depending on the exact vision, but it certainly *feels* like a mistake given how they described things.

[Inquisitor]

I think a lot of this comes down to expectations. Being a Hexblade makes a warlock relatively good at fighting in melee. I think this is true, particularly if they go Blade Pact. It does not, however, mean a Hexblade is as a good frontliner as a Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin who is built to be a frontliner. Which doesn't seem unreasonable, they didn't have to give up their spellcasting (the value of which varies enormously on a campaign's ration of short rests to long-rests) to do it.

That doesn't strike me so much as a design problem or bad build as a failure of communication as to the intended role of a Hexblade. And that's tricky, because the potential for campaigns and party construction is endless, so its really hard to give hard and fast explanations. In a campaign based around heists and everyone else is Rogues and Wizards, a Hexblade might be perfectly adequate as a frontliner. But, they definitely could have done a better job of, in a vacuum, clarifying how they saw each subclass operating. Like, its not *necessarily* a mistake that Hexblades are more effective standing back and blasting than meleeing people, depending on the exact vision, but it certainly *feels* like a mistake given how they described things.

Pretty much this.
A single class hexblade can be decent in melee, decent at range, and cast the highest level spell available to any character once in almost every combat up to level 10 (if the table plays something close to recommended encounters per SR). If you want to play something that's great at one of these 3 aspects then this isn't the character for you.

I do think the earlier post regarding Warlocks not having Con saves was somewhat off the mark. I'd say every character wants Wis saves and every caster wants Con saves. Since Warlocks start with one of these, then getting proficiency in the other or Warcaster is perfectly doable; they're on par with most other full casters in this regard. Contrast this with Bards, who start the game getting neither, so want to patch both holes.

[Psyren]

AC 19, in and of itself, is not enough to be in melee full time.

Yes, it is, unless your games are outliers in terms of difficulty. Monster statistics by Challenge Rating show that monsters typically achieve +8 to hit around CR 11 and +9 to hit around CR 16, i.e. a 50-50 chance of hitting you at those AC levels. For them to land 75% of their attacks against such AC they would need to go above CR 20. I genuinely have to wonder how you're designing your encounters if 18-19 AC isn't good enough to frontline at your table(s).

You’re the one who unnecessarily cited Skrum while quoting me.

My judgements are directed at anyone whose games are seemingly overtuned.

AC 19 is not a force field of invulnerability. It doesn’t mean “you’ll never get hit”.

I never said it was; you don't need to be "invulnerable" or "never get hit" to be an effective frontliner.

And, keep in mind, having a shield and weapon means no casting S, M spells without Warcaster.

Hexblade doesn't need War Caster, Improved Pact Weapon exists. (And Eldritch Mind for that matter.) As noted, more invocations are another reason to go straight Warlock.

[Telok]

I don’t believe this thread is operating on these standards, though. It’s asking what builds under perform what they’re supposedly good at: Hexblade, to me, fills that criteria.

I quite agree, but others have been operating on those standards. Thats what I was speaking to.

Along those lines; I joined a tier 3 game once with two clerics. One was a life cleric, could tell by the healing bonuses. Took a couple months to work out that the other was a war cleric. The subclass wasn't doing anything noticable in tier 3 and he'd been given an artifact spear in order to stay relevant in melee. The war cleric wasn't "incompetent" or anything, just wasn't doing anything more in melee than any other cleric of similar strength & ac would have.

[Skrum]

I genuinely have to wonder how you're designing your encounters if 18-19 AC isn't good enough to frontline at your table(s).

OK, I'll try to explain this point -
AC 19 is *solid.* It's not *exceptional.* If a party is going to run through a coupe of notable encounters per rest, and your character is going to seek out melee combat as a general strategy, they need *exceptional* defenses. Otherwise, the character will absorb more hits than they should and the warm-up encounters become somewhat more dangerous, the party is more likely to have to spend resources in lessor encounters, and then when the boss fight comes around, the party is that much more in the hole.

I further presume that, even if your table's usual encounter is in the medium to hard range, there's occasionally a deadly one? Even deadly+? I don't know about you but I think it kinda sucks having to turn to a plan B when the stuff hits the fan. If my character concept is about melee combat, dinking away with EB in what is probably the most narratively important fight isn't very fun.

I never said it was; you don't need to be "invulnerable" or "never get hit" to be an effective frontliner.

No but you have to not get lit up regularly. A CR 7 monster might only have a +6 to +8 attack bonus, but they do 35-40 damage a round. If AC 19 mitigates that by 45%, that means the warlock is still taking ~17 damage a round on average. From one monster.

Hexblade doesn't need War Caster, Improved Pact Weapon exists. (And Eldritch Mind for that matter.) As noted, more invocations are another reason to go straight Warlock.

RSP made a very good point about resource use earlier (if the warlock is casting darkness or shadow of moil, they can't also cast other stuff). Well, it's not the only resource problem warlocks have.

A warlock would love to have
imp pact weapon
eldritch mind
thirsting blade
eldritch smite
agonizing blast

That's 5 invocations, which warlocks don't get till level 9. What order would you take these in? The first three are essentially required for a meleelock to function at all; no imp pact weapon they can't even cast, no eldritch mind they will likely drop concentration immediately (they're melee remember! They get hit more than ranged casters), no thirsting blade and they're making 1 attack a round.

Problem is, without smite or blast...like what is their actual contribution? Weapon damage + ability score? A d10 cantrip? They might as well be a ranged spellcaster warlock at that point.
==========
Just to reiterate, meleelock isn't non-functional. It's just weak.

[Gurgeh]

RAW doesn't allow for daggers with Sharpshooter, nor handaxes, light hammers, spears or tridents. The Sharpshooter features are only good with ranged weapons, not melee weapons with the Thrown property (which allows ranged attacks but does not change the melee weapon into a ranged weapon).

Many DMs don't quibble over this, but it is not RAW.

Strictly speaking, this is only one-third true.

Sharpshooter's power attack feature that trades accuracy for damage only works for ranged weapons, yes. But the other two bullet points: ignoring cover and getting to attack all the way to long range without disadvantage? They apply to any ranged weapon attacks, regardless of whether they're made with a ranged weapon or a melee weapon.

[Chaos Theory]

I played hexblade in a few short campaigns. I had high expectations and was quite satisfied. The mistake people are making with hexblade is attempting to play it as a melee tank. It should be played like a ranger instead - preferring to stay at range or mobile and casting spells only when it would make a difference to the outcome of the battle. Even when forced into melee, a hexblade can still put up a decent defense between shield, dodge, and racial damage resistance - it just can't stay in melee all the time. I can accept that many people were disappointed with hexblade but it is by no means a bad choice, it's just that people played it with the wrong expectations and with insufficient knowledge about why it is good.

The most disappointing class I've played with has to be wizard. It is billed as the best class in the game but the reality I've found is that many players don't know how to pick effective spells and will spend spell slots on damage spells that deal less damage than a martial's weapon attacks. Even those who understand control will often rely on the DM's goodwill for those spells to be effective and not accidentally catch other characters in their area. Finally, if a spell is effective enough to derail an encounter, some DMs will invent a way to bypass the spell or to break your concentration. In general, wizards are weak without player knowledge, overly antagonistic with player knowledge, and depends too much having a cooperative DM.

[Bobthewizard]

I'm playing a hexblade now from levels 1-11. I like the class a lot. It's a fun Gish, but it's no tank.

I made the character to take advantage of elven accuracy combined with great weapon master, using darkness/devil's sight and shadow of moil for advantage. That was all disappointing and a little boring. Not being able to use other spells, needing to use my first round every fight to buff, and then worrying about losing concentration.

However, when I respecced to dueling fighting initiate with a shield he became much more fun. I don't know if he is super powerful, but having a mostly martial character that can cast command (fey-touched) on 5 enemies, invisibility or hold person on 4 people, fly on 3 characters, or hypnotic pattern or sickening radiance is a lot of fun. The third spell slot at level 11 makes a huge difference.

[Unoriginal]

AC 19 is *solid.* It's not *exceptional.*

I thought AC 20+ was "just basic" to your table?

[RogueJK]

Single SCAGtrips attacks as a replacement/equivalent to Extra Attack.

Sure, 1x SCAGtrip is certainly better than 1x standard melee attack. But 1x weapon attack roll compared to 2x(+) weapon attack rolls just doesn't end up being as satisfying. Think SCAGtrip Tomelock vs. Thirsting Bladelock. Or Paladin 2/Sorcerer X vs. Paladin 6/Sorcerer X.

It's easy to end up with:
Miss on 1x attack, wait a whole round
Miss on 1x attack, wait a whole round
Etc.

If building a weapon-focused character, those additional chances each turn to hit and actually accomplish something matter. The mathematical difference may be small, but the difference in "feel" while playing is larger.

War domain cleric.

One of the players in our first campaign built a war domain cleric, and while he really enjoyed the Tier 1 and the beginning of Tier 2, he retired the character at level 7. Between his character concept and war cleric features, he felt it had gone as far as it could go.

Easy fix: At Level 5 or 6, give them an unlimited use BA weapon attack when they take the Attack Action. They still have the no-strings-attached BA attack WISMOD times per day, for times when they need to do something else with their Action and still want to make an attack. But they get quasi-Extra Attack at a normal level, though it costing the extra BA both keeps them from stepping on the true martials' toes as well as keeps them from getting 3x attacks with Spiritual Weapon.

[Hairfish]

Yes, it is, unless your games are outliers in terms of difficulty. Monster statistics by Challenge Rating show that monsters typically achieve +8 to hit around CR 11 and +9 to hit around CR 16, i.e. a 50-50 chance of hitting you at those AC levels. For them to land 75% of their attacks against such AC they would need to go above CR 20. I genuinely have to wonder how you're designing your encounters if 18-19 AC isn't good enough to frontline at your table(s).

Failing half the time seems like a poor standard for PCs that are supposed to be good at a thing.

[Kurald Galain]

Failing half the time seems like a poor standard for PCs that are supposed to be good at a thing.

Why, though? That's pretty normal in 5E, including with attacks and saving throws and skill checks.

[Psyren]

Failing half the time seems like a poor standard for PCs that are supposed to be good at a thing.

Any rebuttal to what I actually said? Including the CR a monster would need for a +8 to hit by the actual rules?

I thought AC 20+ was "just basic" to your table?

It is. Why they're trying to pretend otherwise is beyond me.

A warlock would love to have
imp pact weapon
eldritch mind
thirsting blade
eldritch smite
agonizing blast

That's 5 invocations, which warlocks don't get till level 9. What order would you take these in?

Eldritch Smite is not a good invocation for a straight-classed warlock, your pact slots are far too valuable to be thrown away on (x+1)d8 on a single hit. So that's out, meaning you can have all the good ones on your list by 7th level.

Personally the order I would go in if I were at your ridiculously lethal table is Agonizing Blast + Eldritch Mind at 2, then Improved Pact Weapon at 5 so I can melee and cast more easily with my shield out, then Thirsting Blade at 7. Sure you delay extra attack to 7th, but that's fine for a pure gish, Swords Bard and Bladesinger get it at 6th so you're only a level late.

But if I were at a normal table I would be okay with 16 AC for the first 6 levels.

[LudicSavant]

Shields are weird in 5e. They are difficult for martial characters but great for spell casters, which is weird. Needing to use an action to remove the shield to use a decent ranged weapon and then another action to put it on just makes it too difficult. Whereas a spellcaster only needs one hand free so can always leave their shield on.

This. It's little design details like this that really add up in aggregate.

And of course, it's one of the many things that got changed in BG3 to make martials feel better (in BG3, they can switch off their shield to a ranged set without an action).

[KorvinStarmast]

Easy fix: At Level 5 or 6, give them an unlimited use BA weapon attack when they take the Attack Action. They still have the no-strings-attached BA attack WISMOD times per day, for times when they need to do something else with their Action and still want to make an attack. But they get quasi-Extra Attack at a normal level, though it costing the extra BA both keeps them from stepping on the true martials' toes as well as keeps them from getting 3x attacks with Spiritual Weapon.

Not a good response.
A: I wasn't the DM.
B: The classes we played were out of the book. (Lore Bard was me).
C: As it worked out, his replacement character had a campaign level hook (fiend warlock patron) that turned the Warlock/Sorcerer into a good addition to the party. (We had a hexblade/fighter MC and a RAW Oath of Glory halfling paladin). All said and done, as much as I loved his cleric (his RP was very enjoyable) the slightly nuts/egomaniac SorcLock added a lot of fun to the campaign. That means that I am glad that it did not work out.

Our hexblade had begun with some kind of inferno/fire based Sorcerer, but after a few sessions switched to the Hexblade/Fighter character. It's a good thing he did, since our Monk/Rogue had to quit the campaign.

[Schwann145]

They are difficult for martial characters but great for spell casters, which is weird. Needing to use an action to remove the shield to use a decent ranged weapon and then another action to put it on just makes it too difficult.

It's not so much that it's too difficult, it's that spellcasters have it too easy.
You have to manipulate material components/a focus, while also making complicated and complex physical hand gestures... and you can do all of this with one hand while your other hand has a shield strapped to it?
Gtfo of here, WotC.

But it's also worth noting that the game seems to just assume that all shields are the sort that strap to your arm and would require all this extra effort to put on or take off.
There are so many examples of shields with a single grip that you just "grab and go," but I guess none of those exist in the assumption of D&D.

[Theodoxus]

But it's also worth noting that the game seems to just assume that all shields are the sort that strap to your arm and would require all this extra effort to put on or take off.
There are so many examples of shields with a single grip that you just "grab and go," but I guess none of those exist in the assumption of D&D.

Having played a number of fantasy LARPs, the whole concept of needing 'Warcaster' to carry a weapon and shield and still cast Somatic spells is ridiculous. Outside of exceedingly small cases, casters aren't casting spells and swinging stick in the same round. Wielding a shield, strapped on or gripped, you can easily hold your weapon in your shield hand and still 'finger wiggle' your Somatics with your primary. In my games, Warcaster is a half feat, and the only time the weapon/shield portion comes to play is something like EKs War Magic. And even then, most EKs I've had run under me are using two handed weapons sans shield - so it's not even an issue.

I grok the reason why the rule exists - but it's extremely gamist for very little benefit.

[Psyren]

I think the goal behind it was to reward divine casters - specifically clerics and paladins, who can emblazon a holy symbol on their shield and treat it as a divine focus, while arcane casters need extra build resources to do the same thing.

But the rule itself is very badly written, because it currently only works for spells that have somatic and material components. Spells that are somatic-only are paradoxically more difficult to cast despite having fewer restrictions. I expect this is one of the rules that will be remediated in 5.5e later this year.

[Blatant Beast]

Yes, it is, unless your games are outliers in terms of difficulty. Monster statistics by Challenge Rating show that monsters typically achieve +8 to hit around CR 11 and +9 to hit around CR 16, i.e. a 50-50 chance of hitting you at those AC levels. For them to land 75% of their attacks against such AC they would need to go above CR 20. I genuinely have to wonder how you're designing your encounters if 18-19 AC isn't good enough to frontline at your table(s).

https://5thsrd.org/gamemaster_rules/...ters_by_cr/#16
I have posted a link to a list of CR 16 creatures in the SRD:
Adult Blue Dragon
Adult Silver Dragon
Iron Golem
Marilith
Planetar

Of these classic D&D creatures, only the Marilith has +9 attack modifier, the rest have +12 to hit and above.

Also, in response to your use of Darkness on a held object, there is risk even with that course of action. A Charm effect, Command Spell, Fear spell, or the Incapacitated Condition can cause you to drop the item, which I would plaintively classify as an unfortunate and potentially devastating sequence of events.

Darkness tanking has risks, as does assuming all CR 16 creatures will only have a +9 to hit based off the DMG charts. Vampires, for example, have a low Offensive CR, but a high Defensive CR, other creatures have the inverse.

The Attack Modifiers in Storm King’s Thunder often exceed +9, indeed a CR8 Frost Giant has that exact attack modifier.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm going to throw in Spores too, I played one in UA and it was fun but final design... eh. There's just no reason for the features to shut down when you lose your piddling amount of temp hp, major fun killer that leaves you burning WS for no reason or just playing as a normal Druid.

How I would have done this:

Rogue Scout with shield+ Sharpshooter + using daggers.

One level of Fighter to have both the shield proficiency and the Thrown Weapon Fighting fighting style.

That sounds like a fun combo, can imagine the shield lined with daggers to draw.

They get medium armor and shields; that's all you need to be a competitive frontliner,

This just isn't true, medium and shields gets you a niceish AC, but it's no where near enough to be a competitive frontliner from a defense standpoint.

This actually segues into my Pact of the Balde was fine argument:

Warlocks can hang in melee just fine, they just need to invest into it. Fiendish Vigor patches the HD difference between a Warlock and a D10 martial for a good fistful of levels, that combined with a decent AC makes them more viable.

They'll never be as defensively competent as a martial without major investment outside of Hexblade and the invocation, but it's a good start.

Again, forget about the subclass features at 6 and higher; what really matters past 1st-level are your invocations and scaling spellcasting.

This shouldn't really be the case though, ideally they should all matter.

[Psyren]

https://5thsrd.org/gamemaster_rules/...ters_by_cr/#16
I have posted a link to a list of CR 16 creatures in the SRD:
Adult Blue Dragon
Adult Silver Dragon
Iron Golem
Marilith
Planetar

Of these classic D&D creatures, only the Marilith has +9 attack modifier, the rest have +12 to hit and above.
...
Darkness tanking has risks, as does assuming all CR 16 creatures will only have a +9 to hit based off the DMG charts. Vampires, for example, have a low Offensive CR, but a high Defensive CR, other creatures have the inverse.

1) The DMG figures by CR are averages. Some creatures will punch above, some below. But the average tells you what you can plan for... on average.
2) By the time you're fighting CR 16 creatures you're almost in Tier 4 and should have a magic item or two. The printed game explicitly sets that expectation - read DMG 37.
3) Also by the time you're fighting CR 16 creatures, your Hexblade will have long since gotten Shadow of Moil and won't need Darkness + Devil's Sight. You can even retrain the latter.

This just isn't true, medium and shields gets you a niceish AC, but it's no where near enough to be a competitive frontliner from a defense standpoint.

So all of your clerics, battlesmiths, valor bards, rangers, and barbarians etc are utterly useless in melee? I mean, I believe you when you say that's how it works at your table, but I truly don't find your table persuasive or representative of the wider playerbase.

This shouldn't really be the case though, ideally they should all matter.

On this we agree, the subclass needs work. But there are still other reasons to stick with Hexblade, e.g. Lifedrinker.