I've been scouring the forums for some days now, I've read Xanathar's guide to everything, and I just read the part about magic weapons in the dungeon masters guide. All of this is to try and understand what a "Hexblade" or a "Hexblade patron" is.
So is it a magical sentient weapon? I like that. I'm sure there can be many funny and fascinating developments there. Or is it something from the Shadowfell? Like is the weapon a gift from some otherworldly being there or whatever? Because that sounds a lot more weird and confusing and complex. Does the pact weapon have to be magical and have special abilities? Or is it just like any other weapon? I want to try and play as a paladin hex blade character and I'd like to understand the intricacies of this thing. Because I am so confused, man. The answers I've found thus far have been unsatisfying and inconclusive. So if you could give me an easy-to-understand explanation that explains the "rules" of the hex blade patron, that would be beyond amazing. Thanks in advance!
There is a ton of room for creativity in Warlock patrons. Officially, I think the Hexblade patron has something to do with the Shadowfell and the Raven Queen.
This subclass is perfect for having a sentient weapon as your patron. Its ties to the Shadowfell also make it a great subclass for warlocks who serve dark entities of shadow and/or death. Perhaps even the Grim Reaper himself.
It would also be a good subclass for a warlock with a sword in the stone type backstory.
There are a ton of possibilities. It doesn't have to just be sentient weapons, though that is a great option. Think creatively.
I played with someone who served the Grim Reaper himself. In DnD of course not in real life, but it was a very interesting background that made me more interested in the hex blade subclass.
personally, I was gonna go for a sword with a CG personality in contrast to my LG alignment. I'm thinking something similar to an "annoying alt girl from high school" type vibe if that makes any sense.
I especially find the option interesting for a paladin. Using the powers of the hex blade to further his or her noble quest- whatever that may be. The mixture of a noble paladin mixed in with some edge from the warlock side of things is a really compelling idea to me. It allows me to put some points into other more unconventional skills like intelligence, while also letting me focus on charisma, and to a lesser extent, constitution. This is especially important as I'm planning to go for the oath of redemption.
Still, I'm always open to more information about the lore and suggestions on character creation, so nothing is finalized. If I do have to choose a more otherworldy patron like the raven queen or something, I'm sure I can whip up something interesting if need be.
The hexblade Parton is pretty ill-defined. (And the ill-defined version in Xanathar's is very forgotten realms-linked) If you're thinking about it, ask your GM what it is in their world; they ought to be able to offer some clarity, even if they have to think about it for a while first.
In my game, the Hexblade focuses on the Great Weapons: a set of very powerful artifact weapons of antiquity, many of which are lost and/or destroyed now. Hexblade warlocks serve the remaining weapons, or perhaps the force behind those weapons.
The problem with the Hexblade is they're merging two different concepts into the subclass: martial support to make Pact of the Blade more viable, and a Shadowfell associated patron. Thus you get the rather ill-defined "something from the Shadowfell that's associated with weapons and also possibly the Raven Queen". Doesn't help that the Shadowfell is probably one of the least-recognized Planes in D&D.
The problem with the Hexblade is they're merging two different concepts into the subclass: martial support to make Pact of the Blade more viable, and a Shadowfell associated patron. Thus you get the rather ill-defined "something from the Shadowfell that's associated with weapons and also possibly the Raven Queen". Doesn't help that the Shadowfell is probably one of the least-recognized Planes in D&D.
It is sad that no one recognizes the Shadowfell, especially since the domains of dread are on that plane and no realizes it.
On the topic of hexblades: I once played a druid barbarian who after a significant event that happened during the course of a campaign respecced into a Devotion Paladin/Phantom Rogue/Hexlock (we were level 15 at the time, and it wasn't a very dangerous campaign, more story focused). He became a hexlock because his father (one of the players) had discovered an angelic sword and given it to him, so when his dad died, his dads spirit inhabited the blade, hence the phantom rogue/hexlock. Also, wasn't the hexblade supposed to be released alongside a raven queen patron? or am I just dumb?
What I really love about Hexblade is that even the Xanathar's notes in the actual book make fun of it for making no sense. It's really foreshadowing the Tasha's Cauldron of Everything school of "Mechanics first, word-salad-passing-for-lore later" subclass design.
I believe that playtest versions first used the Raven Queen as a patron, then a sentient magic weapon, and the official release attempts to use both without actually specifying either, so instead the description of who your actual patron is winds up being... "a force." It might be the Raven Queen. "Sages speculate" that it is. Whoever it is also happens to make sentient weapons, not that Hexblades themselves necessarily have, use, or have ever even seen a sentient weapon themselves. So, as far as you're concerned, it's "a force."
You can of course make something up, but it amuses me to try to imagine how one would even go about making a character consistent with the given lore. "I made a fell pact for magical power with... *shrugs*. I dunno, man. I just found a stack of paper lying on the floor and there was a dotted line, so I signed, and now my dashing good looks let me hit people with swords just as hard as the barbarian."
All D&D classes are based on ... tropes. Variations of tropes. So the basic barbarian is basically Conan. The basic wizard is basically ... well, Gandalf, or Merlin. The ranger is Robin Hood. The fighter is Sir Lancelot. And so on. Classes are carbon copies of fantasy tropes.
The warlock is a trope on the archtypical random schmuck who enters a Faustian deal with an otherworldly entity in exchange for magical power. Late at night, in your bed, when you've been begging all the gods, and nothing happens, and you cry out in desperation "IS ANYONE EVEN LISTENING?!" and a quiet, raspy and disconcerting voice whispers from the darkest corner of the room "I am!"
That's the warlock. The warlock has decided to do what the patron asks, in return for the power to achieve what he wants. The thing is that the GM really should make demands, in exchange for that power. But that doesn't really work in actual play. For which reason I believe the class shouldn't exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
What I really love about Hexblade is that even the Xanathar's notes in the actual book make fun of it for making no sense. It's really foreshadowing the Tasha's Cauldron of Everything school of "Mechanics first, word-salad-passing-for-lore later" subclass design.
I believe that playtest versions first used the Raven Queen as a patron, then a sentient magic weapon, and the official release attempts to use both without actually specifying either, so instead the description of who your actual patron is winds up being... "a force." It might be the Raven Queen. "Sages speculate" that it is. Whoever it is also happens to make sentient weapons, not that Hexblades themselves necessarily have, use, or have ever even seen a sentient weapon themselves. So, as far as you're concerned, it's "a force."
You can of course make something up, but it amuses me to try to imagine how one would even go about making a character consistent with the given lore. "I made a fell pact for magical power with... *shrugs*. I dunno, man. I just found a stack of paper lying on the floor and there was a dotted line, so I signed, and now my dashing good looks let me hit people with swords just as hard as the barbarian."
A "force," huh? Do warlocks ever meet this force or something, or do they just sign this random piece of paper like you said? Bah, whatever the reason, I think I'll stick to the sentient sword idea instead of this mysterious Shadowfell force business.
The problem with the Hexblade is they're merging two different concepts into the subclass: martial support to make Pact of the Blade more viable, and a Shadowfell associated patron. Thus you get the rather ill-defined "something from the Shadowfell that's associated with weapons and also possibly the Raven Queen". Doesn't help that the Shadowfell is probably one of the least-recognized Planes in D&D.
I don't know if I want my weapon to be from theshadowfell specifically. I remember reading in the DM's guide and seeing the examples of sentient weapons that were used as examples. They had their own backstories and histories not necessarily linked with the Shadowfell (if at all). Why lock myself to the Shadowfell and instead choose something else?
All D&D classes are based on ... tropes. Variations of tropes. So the basic barbarian is basically Conan. The basic wizard is basically ... well, Gandalf, or Merlin. The ranger is Robin Hood. The fighter is Sir Lancelot. And so on. Classes are carbon copies of fantasy tropes.
Even if it were once the case, which it more or less is, though not necessarily the most obvious ones (if the wizard is supposed to evoke Gandalf or merlin, it's always done a crappy job; there are likely better matches in the more obscure fantasy novels Gygax and Arneson were reading), it's been eating its own tail so long that the D&D classes are first and foremost based on the D&D classes.
The warlock is a trope on the archtypical random schmuck who enters a Faustian deal with an otherworldly entity in exchange for magical power. Late at night, in your bed, when you've been begging all the gods, and nothing happens, and you cry out in desperation "IS ANYONE EVEN LISTENING?!" and a quiet, raspy and disconcerting voice whispers from the darkest corner of the room "I am!"
That's the warlock. The warlock has decided to do what the patron asks, in return for the power to achieve what he wants.
Eh. It's _a_ warlock. Another common one is the one who goes into it eyes open.
The thing is that the GM really should make demands, in exchange for that power.
Maybe. The bargain is already made. The patron could easily have what they wanted already. Active patron is certainly a way to play it, but it's not the only one, and it's certainly not required. Most of the classes don't have to run errands for a supernatural entity to do their thing. Usually not even clerics, and it's not like the warlock gets so much more than everyone else that they need to be reined in by the GM.
Doing the patron's errands is, and should be, a role-playing option. Fighting against the patron is another option. Blithely wandering through the world, unaware of the true nature of the being you cut a deal with is yet another. (I've played that last one; it was hella fun. I was busy doing the wrong things for all the best reasons, while losing touch with the norms of mortal existence, including sleep, talking, and gravity.)
But that doesn't really work in actual play. For which reason I believe the class shouldn't exist.
I've played warlock. I've run for warlocks. It works fine.
All D&D classes are based on ... tropes. Variations of tropes. So the basic barbarian is basically Conan. The basic wizard is basically ... well, Gandalf, or Merlin. The ranger is Robin Hood. The fighter is Sir Lancelot. And so on. Classes are carbon copies of fantasy tropes.
The warlock is a trope on the archtypical random schmuck who enters a Faustian deal with an otherworldly entity in exchange for magical power. Late at night, in your bed, when you've been begging all the gods, and nothing happens, and you cry out in desperation "IS ANYONE EVEN LISTENING?!" and a quiet, raspy and disconcerting voice whispers from the darkest corner of the room "I am!"
That's the warlock. The warlock has decided to do what the patron asks, in return for the power to achieve what he wants. The thing is that the GM really should make demands, in exchange for that power. But that doesn't really work in actual play. For which reason I believe the class shouldn't exist.
Wouldn't that logic also apply to cleric and paladin? A cleric also serves a patron, and a paladin's oath is even more explicit that certain actions are expected of the character than the other two. And perhaps, to a lesser extent, the backgrounds which imply serving some institution or higher authority like an acolyte (your religion) or a noble (who would presumably have a sovereign unless your character is a ruler in their own right)?
It also occurs to me that Faust himself, according to the original legend, had free rein to use Mephistopheles' power as he saw fit until the term of his deal was up.
It's more interesting if the patron makes demands, and it's a fair point that it's hard to implement under a lot of circumstances, but... basically it means that any warlock has an inherent plot hook, which, even if it's only used in a small portion of games, seems like a positive that most classes don't necessarily have?
I've played warlock. I've run for warlocks. It works fine.
But ... I'm not saying it doesn't work. Dragonborn propably work fine too.
What I'm saying is I hate them. Not because of functionality, but because of what they are. My hatred for dragonborn is kinda inherited: I hate dragons, and I hate dragons because I hate Dragonlance. I hate that dragons were reduced, essentially, to mules.
I hate warlocks because .. well, it's slightly more complex, and slightly less. Warlocks bring nothing, they're just another caster - and not one that was needed in any way. Seriously, if you want to play around with dark magics, you need to play Call of Cthulhu, where there's an actual price to pay, and being a caster is a straight - but possibly slow - slide into insanity.
There are so many things wrong with warlocks. You could make a credible warlock in another system, but D&D simply isn't geared for it. If you want dark, play something else.
Of course, I'm not saying anyone else shouldn't do exactly what they like - I'm explaining why I despise warlocks with all my heart. That said, there's a warlock in one of my current campaigns. I still hate warlocks, but I promise I won't randomly kill of that character, and then chuckle about it.
All D&D classes are based on ... tropes. Variations of tropes. So the basic barbarian is basically Conan. The basic wizard is basically ... well, Gandalf, or Merlin. The ranger is Robin Hood. The fighter is Sir Lancelot. And so on. Classes are carbon copies of fantasy tropes.
The warlock is a trope on the archtypical random schmuck who enters a Faustian deal with an otherworldly entity in exchange for magical power. Late at night, in your bed, when you've been begging all the gods, and nothing happens, and you cry out in desperation "IS ANYONE EVEN LISTENING?!" and a quiet, raspy and disconcerting voice whispers from the darkest corner of the room "I am!"
That's the warlock. The warlock has decided to do what the patron asks, in return for the power to achieve what he wants. The thing is that the GM really should make demands, in exchange for that power. But that doesn't really work in actual play. For which reason I believe the class shouldn't exist.
Wouldn't that logic also apply to cleric and paladin? A cleric also serves a patron, and a paladin's oath is even more explicit that certain actions are expected of the character than the other two. And perhaps, to a lesser extent, the backgrounds which imply serving some institution or higher authority like an acolyte (your religion) or a noble (who would presumably have a sovereign unless your character is a ruler in their own right)?
It also occurs to me that Faust himself, according to the original legend, had free rein to use Mephistopheles' power as he saw fit until the term of his deal was up.
It's more interesting if the patron makes demands, and it's a fair point that it's hard to implement under a lot of circumstances, but... basically it means that any warlock has an inherent plot hook, which, even if it's only used in a small portion of games, seems like a positive that most classes don't necessarily have?
Paladins and clerics don't sign over their souls in pact with devils.
Faust's deal is a lifetime of pleasure for an eternity of suffering. That's the problem. In D&D, the deal is a lifetime of pleasure for absolutely no cost what so ever. And if you do away with the boring, pointless warlock class, you're magically free of all the BS.
Like I said, I GM a warlock, and it's not like it's doing much active harm to my game. But some. I need to make some excuse for why there are no fey in this world, while the warlock has an archfey patron. The player is going to talk about his non-existant patron, which doesn't fit the lore of the world in any way, shape or form. And the player in question has picked warlock for mechanical reasons, not because he has any intentions of playing to the background of the class at all.
I hate it. It's counter to everything I'm about as a GM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I've played warlock. I've run for warlocks. It works fine.
But ... I'm not saying it doesn't work.
You literally said it didn't, but never mind.
Paladins and clerics don't sign over their souls in pact with devils.
But they, or at least clerics, are serving a supernatural being and get power in exchange.
Faust's deal is a lifetime of pleasure for an eternity of suffering. That's the problem. In D&D, the deal is a lifetime of pleasure for absolutely no cost what so ever. And if you do away with the boring, pointless warlock class, you're magically free of all the BS.
It's power for... something. Maybe service. Maybe their soul after death. Maybe something else, that has already occurred, or will occur just by the warlock being in the world.
And it doesn't have to be dark, faustian, or Call-of-Cthulhuish. Celestial warlocks are a thing. IMO, Archfey should tend toward the weird and confusing for the warlock, because the fey are doing their own thing, and probably have agents in the mortal world just to mess with each other. The Hexblade can be... well, who knows? (See topic of thread)
Like I said, I GM a warlock, and it's not like it's doing much active harm to my game. But some. I need to make some excuse for why there are no fey in this world, while the warlock has an archfey patron. The player is going to talk about his non-existant patron, which doesn't fit the lore of the world in any way, shape or form. And the player in question has picked warlock for mechanical reasons, not because he has any intentions of playing to the background of the class at all.
I hate it. It's counter to everything I'm about as a GM.
Then... don't allow it? You don't have to have warlocks. If you do have warlocks, but don't have fey, you don't have to have the archfey patron. If a player really wants the mechanics of archfey, you can work with them to reflavor it. Or not. You're the DM; it's your world.
It really sounds like you don't like warlocks, but refuse to enforce your preferences in worldbuilding, and blame it on the class existing. Do you allow Dragonborn, even though you also hate them?
That's the warlock. The warlock has decided to do what the patron asks, in return for the power to achieve what he wants. The thing is that the GM really should make demands, in exchange for that power. But that doesn't really work in actual play. For which reason I believe the class shouldn't exist.
I kind of agree with you. One of the bits I find hard with warlocks is that if the patron is anything but good, then the heroic fantasy will very likely involve a definitive conflict between patron and warlock. 5e doesn't really have any advice for how to play that out. If the warlock is sworn and beholden, that conflict should be pretty easily won by the patron. And even if the warlock can break from the patron, what then? Do they lose their warlock abilities? It's all so much more murky than with any of the other classes save for a paladin (maybe).
The hexblade adds yet another complication, which is that nobody really has a good idea for what the patron is!
Warlocks offer such great opportunities for roleplay. Yes, the written lore is murky, but that allows for so much more creativity. You say that warlocks shouldn't exist because you can play one aspect of them better in other systems, but not everyone has the time, money, or desire to explore specific genre based TTRPGs. Dnd is great because it enables you to play a ton of different genres and types of characters with one set of rules.
If y'all want to continue to discuss the existence of Warlocks, another thread should probably be made. This thread was made to discuss what sort of patrons the Hexblade subclass serves, and now we are arguing whether or not the class should even exist. I'd be open to discussing this further because everyone I know loves this class and I haven't heard this take before, but I don't think this thread is the place for it.
I kind of agree with you. One of the bits I find hard with warlocks is that if the patron is anything but good, then the heroic fantasy will very likely involve a definitive conflict between patron and warlock. 5e doesn't really have any advice for how to play that out. If the warlock is sworn and beholden, that conflict should be pretty easily won by the patron. And even if the warlock can break from the patron, what then? Do they lose their warlock abilities? It's all so much more murky than with any of the other classes save for a paladin (maybe).
By the rules, there are no penalties for a cleric disobeying or abandoning their god, a paladin breaking their oath, or a warlock feuding with their patron.
And there shouldn't be. It's firmly in the territory of role-playing. If there are mechanical consequences, like there were in older editions, they're a minefield of differing interpretation between player and GM. There will be consequences most of the time, because players want conflict. They want drama.
Will there be players who are just like "I do what I want, and there's nothing my patron/god can do about it"? Sure. If your interpretation of the warlock is that they have learned magical secrets from their patron, instead of that they draw power from their patron, it may even be true in-world. However:
I don't actually care that people who are intent on ignore the role-playing aspects of the game can ignore the role-playing aspects of the game.
The DM has considerable non-mechanical avenues to deal with the issue, if need be. While it wasn't a warlock situation, I had a player cut a deal with an archfey, then drag their feet on fulfilling the deal. This ended with the PCs being dragged into the feywild, and the PC ending up with a geas.
The hexblade adds yet another complication, which is that nobody really has a good idea for what the patron is!
This is true. Part of the problem is there are plenty of stories about characters with intelligent weapons that give them power. (Elric, Brust's Dragaera series, Elric, arguably the second Amber series, Elric, etc.)
But you can't give a starting PC an intelligent magic weapon of great power, and there are no stories I can think of where somebody's running around serving an intelligent weapon that they don't wield, so, while they clearly started at Elric, they had no clear destination. (The second Amber series might actually be a good model to work from for Hexblades.)
But you can't give a starting PC an intelligent magic weapon of great power, and there are no stories I can think of where somebody's running around serving an intelligent weapon that they don't wield, so, while they clearly started at Elric, they had no clear destination. (The second Amber series might actually be a good model to work from for Hexblades.)
That part right there is where I am currently having problems at the moment. I can't immediately start running around with an OP magic weapon, so what do I start off with? And when I do eventually upgrade weapons, what happens then?
But you can't give a starting PC an intelligent magic weapon of great power, and there are no stories I can think of where somebody's running around serving an intelligent weapon that they don't wield, so, while they clearly started at Elric, they had no clear destination. (The second Amber series might actually be a good model to work from for Hexblades.)
That part right there is where I am currently having problems at the moment. I can't immediately start running around with an OP magic weapon, so what do I start off with? And when I do eventually upgrade weapons, what happens then?
You get whatever weapon you buy and use hex warrior to use Charisma to fight with. You get to manifest weapons out of nothing if you take Pact of the Blade, but they're not the entity you serve, either. There's absolutely nothing in the hexblade that ever guarantees you'll get an intelligent weapon, artifact, or any such thing. Your patron is beyond your control.
This is why you need to talk to your DM about it. So that they, possibly with your input, can hash out what your patron is. (Also, so that if they want to give you some kind of intelligent weapon, they can. It probably won't be all that powerful to start with. It'll also probably not be an unalloyed blessing. (See Elric.))
Yes, the Hexblade is a badly designed patron. Since they seem to be improving pact of the blade in the revised edition, if we ever see it again, it'll hopefully be something coherent.
But you can't give a starting PC an intelligent magic weapon of great power, and there are no stories I can think of where somebody's running around serving an intelligent weapon that they don't wield, so, while they clearly started at Elric, they had no clear destination. (The second Amber series might actually be a good model to work from for Hexblades.)
That part right there is where I am currently having problems at the moment. I can't immediately start running around with an OP magic weapon, so what do I start off with? And when I do eventually upgrade weapons, what happens then?
You get whatever weapon you buy and use hex warrior to use Charisma to fight with. You get to manifest weapons out of nothing if you take Pact of the Blade, but they're not the entity you serve, either. There's absolutely nothing in the hexblade that ever guarantees you'll get an intelligent weapon, artifact, or any such thing. Your patron is beyond your control.
This is why you need to talk to your DM about it. So that they, possibly with your input, can hash out what your patron is. (Also, so that if they want to give you some kind of intelligent weapon, they can. It probably won't be all that powerful to start with. It'll also probably not be an unalloyed blessing. (See Elric.))
Yes, the Hexblade is a badly designed patron. Since they seem to be improving pact of the blade in the revised edition, if we ever see it again, it'll hopefully be something coherent.
I've been scouring the forums for some days now, I've read Xanathar's guide to everything, and I just read the part about magic weapons in the dungeon masters guide. All of this is to try and understand what a "Hexblade" or a "Hexblade patron" is.
So is it a magical sentient weapon? I like that. I'm sure there can be many funny and fascinating developments there. Or is it something from the Shadowfell? Like is the weapon a gift from some otherworldly being there or whatever? Because that sounds a lot more weird and confusing and complex. Does the pact weapon have to be magical and have special abilities? Or is it just like any other weapon? I want to try and play as a paladin hex blade character and I'd like to understand the intricacies of this thing. Because I am so confused, man. The answers I've found thus far have been unsatisfying and inconclusive. So if you could give me an easy-to-understand explanation that explains the "rules" of the hex blade patron, that would be beyond amazing. Thanks in advance!
There is a ton of room for creativity in Warlock patrons. Officially, I think the Hexblade patron has something to do with the Shadowfell and the Raven Queen.
This subclass is perfect for having a sentient weapon as your patron. Its ties to the Shadowfell also make it a great subclass for warlocks who serve dark entities of shadow and/or death. Perhaps even the Grim Reaper himself.
It would also be a good subclass for a warlock with a sword in the stone type backstory.
There are a ton of possibilities. It doesn't have to just be sentient weapons, though that is a great option. Think creatively.
I played with someone who served the Grim Reaper himself. In DnD of course not in real life, but it was a very interesting background that made me more interested in the hex blade subclass.
personally, I was gonna go for a sword with a CG personality in contrast to my LG alignment. I'm thinking something similar to an "annoying alt girl from high school" type vibe if that makes any sense.
I especially find the option interesting for a paladin. Using the powers of the hex blade to further his or her noble quest- whatever that may be. The mixture of a noble paladin mixed in with some edge from the warlock side of things is a really compelling idea to me. It allows me to put some points into other more unconventional skills like intelligence, while also letting me focus on charisma, and to a lesser extent, constitution. This is especially important as I'm planning to go for the oath of redemption.
Still, I'm always open to more information about the lore and suggestions on character creation, so nothing is finalized. If I do have to choose a more otherworldy patron like the raven queen or something, I'm sure I can whip up something interesting if need be.
The hexblade Parton is pretty ill-defined. (And the ill-defined version in Xanathar's is very forgotten realms-linked) If you're thinking about it, ask your GM what it is in their world; they ought to be able to offer some clarity, even if they have to think about it for a while first.
In my game, the Hexblade focuses on the Great Weapons: a set of very powerful artifact weapons of antiquity, many of which are lost and/or destroyed now. Hexblade warlocks serve the remaining weapons, or perhaps the force behind those weapons.
The problem with the Hexblade is they're merging two different concepts into the subclass: martial support to make Pact of the Blade more viable, and a Shadowfell associated patron. Thus you get the rather ill-defined "something from the Shadowfell that's associated with weapons and also possibly the Raven Queen". Doesn't help that the Shadowfell is probably one of the least-recognized Planes in D&D.
It is sad that no one recognizes the Shadowfell, especially since the domains of dread are on that plane and no realizes it.
On the topic of hexblades: I once played a druid barbarian who after a significant event that happened during the course of a campaign respecced into a Devotion Paladin/Phantom Rogue/Hexlock (we were level 15 at the time, and it wasn't a very dangerous campaign, more story focused). He became a hexlock because his father (one of the players) had discovered an angelic sword and given it to him, so when his dad died, his dads spirit inhabited the blade, hence the phantom rogue/hexlock. Also, wasn't the hexblade supposed to be released alongside a raven queen patron? or am I just dumb?
Hi, I'm Raccoon_Master, a young genderfluid actor, writer, explorer, and bass vocalist. Pronouns They/Them/Theirs
My Characters: Brormin the Devout Crusher; Morgrom the Cunning Summoner; Thea the Rebellious Beauty;
Check out my EXTENDED SIGNATUR and don’t forget to join the Anything but the OGL 2.0 Thread!
"I don't make sense to you, and I don't make sense to myself. Maybe the only one I make sense to is God" ~ Me, trying to sound smart
What I really love about Hexblade is that even the Xanathar's notes in the actual book make fun of it for making no sense. It's really foreshadowing the Tasha's Cauldron of Everything school of "Mechanics first, word-salad-passing-for-lore later" subclass design.
I believe that playtest versions first used the Raven Queen as a patron, then a sentient magic weapon, and the official release attempts to use both without actually specifying either, so instead the description of who your actual patron is winds up being... "a force." It might be the Raven Queen. "Sages speculate" that it is. Whoever it is also happens to make sentient weapons, not that Hexblades themselves necessarily have, use, or have ever even seen a sentient weapon themselves. So, as far as you're concerned, it's "a force."
You can of course make something up, but it amuses me to try to imagine how one would even go about making a character consistent with the given lore. "I made a fell pact for magical power with... *shrugs*. I dunno, man. I just found a stack of paper lying on the floor and there was a dotted line, so I signed, and now my dashing good looks let me hit people with swords just as hard as the barbarian."
Medium humanoid (human), lawful neutral
All D&D classes are based on ... tropes. Variations of tropes. So the basic barbarian is basically Conan. The basic wizard is basically ... well, Gandalf, or Merlin. The ranger is Robin Hood. The fighter is Sir Lancelot. And so on. Classes are carbon copies of fantasy tropes.
The warlock is a trope on the archtypical random schmuck who enters a Faustian deal with an otherworldly entity in exchange for magical power. Late at night, in your bed, when you've been begging all the gods, and nothing happens, and you cry out in desperation "IS ANYONE EVEN LISTENING?!" and a quiet, raspy and disconcerting voice whispers from the darkest corner of the room "I am!"
That's the warlock. The warlock has decided to do what the patron asks, in return for the power to achieve what he wants. The thing is that the GM really should make demands, in exchange for that power. But that doesn't really work in actual play. For which reason I believe the class shouldn't exist.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
A "force," huh? Do warlocks ever meet this force or something, or do they just sign this random piece of paper like you said? Bah, whatever the reason, I think I'll stick to the sentient sword idea instead of this mysterious Shadowfell force business.
I don't know if I want my weapon to be from theshadowfell specifically. I remember reading in the DM's guide and seeing the examples of sentient weapons that were used as examples. They had their own backstories and histories not necessarily linked with the Shadowfell (if at all). Why lock myself to the Shadowfell and instead choose something else?
After all, interpretation can be fun and cool!
Even if it were once the case, which it more or less is, though not necessarily the most obvious ones (if the wizard is supposed to evoke Gandalf or merlin, it's always done a crappy job; there are likely better matches in the more obscure fantasy novels Gygax and Arneson were reading), it's been eating its own tail so long that the D&D classes are first and foremost based on the D&D classes.
Eh. It's _a_ warlock. Another common one is the one who goes into it eyes open.
Maybe. The bargain is already made. The patron could easily have what they wanted already. Active patron is certainly a way to play it, but it's not the only one, and it's certainly not required. Most of the classes don't have to run errands for a supernatural entity to do their thing. Usually not even clerics, and it's not like the warlock gets so much more than everyone else that they need to be reined in by the GM.
Doing the patron's errands is, and should be, a role-playing option. Fighting against the patron is another option. Blithely wandering through the world, unaware of the true nature of the being you cut a deal with is yet another. (I've played that last one; it was hella fun. I was busy doing the wrong things for all the best reasons, while losing touch with the norms of mortal existence, including sleep, talking, and gravity.)
I've played warlock. I've run for warlocks. It works fine.
Wouldn't that logic also apply to cleric and paladin? A cleric also serves a patron, and a paladin's oath is even more explicit that certain actions are expected of the character than the other two. And perhaps, to a lesser extent, the backgrounds which imply serving some institution or higher authority like an acolyte (your religion) or a noble (who would presumably have a sovereign unless your character is a ruler in their own right)?
It also occurs to me that Faust himself, according to the original legend, had free rein to use Mephistopheles' power as he saw fit until the term of his deal was up.
It's more interesting if the patron makes demands, and it's a fair point that it's hard to implement under a lot of circumstances, but... basically it means that any warlock has an inherent plot hook, which, even if it's only used in a small portion of games, seems like a positive that most classes don't necessarily have?
Medium humanoid (human), lawful neutral
But ... I'm not saying it doesn't work. Dragonborn propably work fine too.
What I'm saying is I hate them. Not because of functionality, but because of what they are. My hatred for dragonborn is kinda inherited: I hate dragons, and I hate dragons because I hate Dragonlance. I hate that dragons were reduced, essentially, to mules.
I hate warlocks because .. well, it's slightly more complex, and slightly less. Warlocks bring nothing, they're just another caster - and not one that was needed in any way. Seriously, if you want to play around with dark magics, you need to play Call of Cthulhu, where there's an actual price to pay, and being a caster is a straight - but possibly slow - slide into insanity.
There are so many things wrong with warlocks. You could make a credible warlock in another system, but D&D simply isn't geared for it. If you want dark, play something else.
Of course, I'm not saying anyone else shouldn't do exactly what they like - I'm explaining why I despise warlocks with all my heart. That said, there's a warlock in one of my current campaigns. I still hate warlocks, but I promise I won't randomly kill of that character, and then chuckle about it.
Paladins and clerics don't sign over their souls in pact with devils.
Faust's deal is a lifetime of pleasure for an eternity of suffering. That's the problem. In D&D, the deal is a lifetime of pleasure for absolutely no cost what so ever. And if you do away with the boring, pointless warlock class, you're magically free of all the BS.
Like I said, I GM a warlock, and it's not like it's doing much active harm to my game. But some. I need to make some excuse for why there are no fey in this world, while the warlock has an archfey patron. The player is going to talk about his non-existant patron, which doesn't fit the lore of the world in any way, shape or form. And the player in question has picked warlock for mechanical reasons, not because he has any intentions of playing to the background of the class at all.
I hate it. It's counter to everything I'm about as a GM.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You literally said it didn't, but never mind.
But they, or at least clerics, are serving a supernatural being and get power in exchange.
It's power for... something. Maybe service. Maybe their soul after death. Maybe something else, that has already occurred, or will occur just by the warlock being in the world.
And it doesn't have to be dark, faustian, or Call-of-Cthulhuish. Celestial warlocks are a thing. IMO, Archfey should tend toward the weird and confusing for the warlock, because the fey are doing their own thing, and probably have agents in the mortal world just to mess with each other. The Hexblade can be... well, who knows? (See topic of thread)
Then... don't allow it? You don't have to have warlocks. If you do have warlocks, but don't have fey, you don't have to have the archfey patron. If a player really wants the mechanics of archfey, you can work with them to reflavor it. Or not. You're the DM; it's your world.
It really sounds like you don't like warlocks, but refuse to enforce your preferences in worldbuilding, and blame it on the class existing. Do you allow Dragonborn, even though you also hate them?
I kind of agree with you. One of the bits I find hard with warlocks is that if the patron is anything but good, then the heroic fantasy will very likely involve a definitive conflict between patron and warlock. 5e doesn't really have any advice for how to play that out. If the warlock is sworn and beholden, that conflict should be pretty easily won by the patron. And even if the warlock can break from the patron, what then? Do they lose their warlock abilities? It's all so much more murky than with any of the other classes save for a paladin (maybe).
The hexblade adds yet another complication, which is that nobody really has a good idea for what the patron is!
Warlocks offer such great opportunities for roleplay. Yes, the written lore is murky, but that allows for so much more creativity. You say that warlocks shouldn't exist because you can play one aspect of them better in other systems, but not everyone has the time, money, or desire to explore specific genre based TTRPGs. Dnd is great because it enables you to play a ton of different genres and types of characters with one set of rules.
If y'all want to continue to discuss the existence of Warlocks, another thread should probably be made. This thread was made to discuss what sort of patrons the Hexblade subclass serves, and now we are arguing whether or not the class should even exist. I'd be open to discussing this further because everyone I know loves this class and I haven't heard this take before, but I don't think this thread is the place for it.
By the rules, there are no penalties for a cleric disobeying or abandoning their god, a paladin breaking their oath, or a warlock feuding with their patron.
And there shouldn't be. It's firmly in the territory of role-playing. If there are mechanical consequences, like there were in older editions, they're a minefield of differing interpretation between player and GM. There will be consequences most of the time, because players want conflict. They want drama.
Will there be players who are just like "I do what I want, and there's nothing my patron/god can do about it"? Sure. If your interpretation of the warlock is that they have learned magical secrets from their patron, instead of that they draw power from their patron, it may even be true in-world. However:
This is true. Part of the problem is there are plenty of stories about characters with intelligent weapons that give them power. (Elric, Brust's Dragaera series, Elric, arguably the second Amber series, Elric, etc.)
But you can't give a starting PC an intelligent magic weapon of great power, and there are no stories I can think of where somebody's running around serving an intelligent weapon that they don't wield, so, while they clearly started at Elric, they had no clear destination. (The second Amber series might actually be a good model to work from for Hexblades.)
That part right there is where I am currently having problems at the moment. I can't immediately start running around with an OP magic weapon, so what do I start off with? And when I do eventually upgrade weapons, what happens then?
You get whatever weapon you buy and use hex warrior to use Charisma to fight with. You get to manifest weapons out of nothing if you take Pact of the Blade, but they're not the entity you serve, either. There's absolutely nothing in the hexblade that ever guarantees you'll get an intelligent weapon, artifact, or any such thing. Your patron is beyond your control.
This is why you need to talk to your DM about it. So that they, possibly with your input, can hash out what your patron is. (Also, so that if they want to give you some kind of intelligent weapon, they can. It probably won't be all that powerful to start with. It'll also probably not be an unalloyed blessing. (See Elric.))
Yes, the Hexblade is a badly designed patron. Since they seem to be improving pact of the blade in the revised edition, if we ever see it again, it'll hopefully be something coherent.
That's a question for your DM.
sounds good to me. I also hope that it gets fleshed out. I wish I could ask, but all I can do is hope for now.
In the mean time, I'm sure I can whip something very interesting up! Thanks for the help guys