imho it is a giant trap to take the +2 into account for AC calculations, 1) it only works on the cursed target, 2) only if you are with 10' of the cursed target, 3) you dont have that many curses avail to even keep this up 50% of the time. If you have a battle with just 1 Target the curse AC bonus might be ok, but honestly how often do you battle just 1 target, 99% of the time you have 5+ targets, so if you have the bonus on one thats about 20% or 0.4 AC and i dont even go into how often you can keep that up
so the more accurate AC is UA Hexblade : Armor of Shadows + dex ( +3 is the highest that is reasonable ) + Bracers of Defense = 18 AC ( with 1 attunement ) 2014 Hexblade ( or 1 lvl ftr split i would go with hvy armor for the heavy armor master feat ) : full plate / breastplate +2 + defense style + shield +2 = 25 / 26 AC wich gives the UA a disadvantage of 35-40% higher chance of getting hit
its not only a invocation tax for the UA hexblade , but its a MC tax, and if you should play at a table with no MC ( there are some tables that do that ) the UA Hexblade is just unplayable
Yes. It's important to remember MC remains an OPTION, not an assumed allowed route. As a DM, I generally don't allow MC unless there are strong RP-related reasons. I really dislike dips for optimization/maxing out.
imho it is a giant trap to take the +2 into account for AC calculations, 1) it only works on the cursed target, 2) only if you are with 10' of the cursed target, 3) you dont have that many curses avail to even keep this up 50% of the time. If you have a battle with just 1 Target the curse AC bonus might be ok, but honestly how often do you battle just 1 target, 99% of the time you have 5+ targets, so if you have the bonus on one thats about 20% or 0.4 AC and i dont even go into how often you can keep that up
so the more accurate AC is UA Hexblade : Armor of Shadows + dex ( +3 is the highest that is reasonable ) + Bracers of Defense = 18 AC ( with 1 attunement ) 2014 Hexblade ( or 1 lvl ftr split i would go with hvy armor for the heavy armor master feat ) : full plate / breastplate +2 + defense style + shield +2 = 25 / 26 AC wich gives the UA a disadvantage of 35-40% higher chance of getting hit
its not only a invocation tax for the UA hexblade , but its a MC tax, and if you should play at a table with no MC ( there are some tables that do that ) the UA Hexblade is just unplayable
UA hexblade is every bit as playable as the other bladelocks are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
imho it is a giant trap to take the +2 into account for AC calculations, 1) it only works on the cursed target,2) only if you are with 10' of the cursed target, 3) you dont have that many curses avail to even keep this up 50% of the time. If you have a battle with just 1 Target the curse AC bonus might be ok, but honestly how often do you battle just 1 target, 99% of the time you have 5+ targets, so if you have the bonus on one thats about 20% or 0.4 AC and i dont even go into how often you can keep that up
so the more accurate AC is UA Hexblade : Armor of Shadows + dex ( +3 is the highest that is reasonable ) + Bracers of Defense = 18 AC ( with 1 attunement ) 2014 Hexblade ( or 1 lvl ftr split i would go with hvy armor for the heavy armor master feat ) : full plate / breastplate +2 + defense style + shield +2 = 25 / 26 AC wich gives the UA a disadvantage of 35-40% higher chance of getting hit
its not only a invocation tax for the UA hexblade , but its a MC tax, and if you should play at a table with no MC ( there are some tables that do that ) the UA Hexblade is just unplayable
UA hexblade is every bit as playable as the other bladelocks are.
The idea that the +2 AC is only against the Cursed target is also incorrect.
imho it is a giant trap to take the +2 into account for AC calculations, 1) it only works on the cursed target, 2) only if you are with 10' of the cursed target, 3) you dont have that many curses avail to even keep this up 50% of the time. If you have a battle with just 1 Target the curse AC bonus might be ok, but honestly how often do you battle just 1 target, 99% of the time you have 5+ targets, so if you have the bonus on one thats about 20% or 0.4 AC and i dont even go into how often you can keep that up
so the more accurate AC is UA Hexblade : Armor of Shadows + dex ( +3 is the highest that is reasonable ) + Bracers of Defense = 18 AC ( with 1 attunement ) 2014 Hexblade ( or 1 lvl ftr split i would go with hvy armor for the heavy armor master feat ) : full plate / breastplate +2 + defense style + shield +2 = 25 / 26 AC wich gives the UA a disadvantage of 35-40% higher chance of getting hit
its not only a invocation tax for the UA hexblade , but its a MC tax, and if you should play at a table with no MC ( there are some tables that do that ) the UA Hexblade is just unplayable
as has been said, accursed shield is a bonus to AC as long as you are close to a cursed target. its not only for the cursed target.
There is a difference between what you would like to have, and what is unplayable, especially relative to other classes.
so by your definition, Monk, and rogue are simply unplayable classes.
25-26 AC has never been the minimum requirement for any class ever. Magic items are not required to play, and you may never get any.
3 is not the cap on Dex investment, every class can get 20 in two stats, if it wants to. if you are choosing not to go past 3 dex, its because you are gaining something else you find more valuable than 2 more AC.
The class with 25-26 AC in 2024 would not be well balanced.
So, I am a tad late to the discussion, but something I noticed with the updated changes was that many of the early curse effects don't actually directly affect the target.
You might not be getting the most out of your abilities, but if you don't want to, or can't, be within 10 feet of your current foe, Curse your neighbor. Get +2 AC anywhere on the battlefield as long as you are next to your pal. At the end of your ally's turn, if they are 30+ feet away from you, move your speed straight to them (without using a reaction).
If the UA version persists, it's good to be aware of options. If WotC keeps the Hexblade as Light Armor only, are there any official magic medium armors clearly intended to be used by a Hexblade/Warlock? They would probably just want half plate +x, right?
Also, regarding the changes from 2014 to 2024, RPGBot has a video that summarizes the issues. The mechanical comments are based on the Horror UA, but I think the take aways are still valid. It's a good subclass, but it's not the Hexblade. Updating your characters will be more of a rebuild; you will be playing a different character, not just one updated to the current rules. It's a Hexblade in name alone to invalidate the 2014 Hexblade, not to carry the concept forward with updated mechanics.
However, what if instead of armor proficiency, they gave Armor of Shadows as a free invocation? That would reach an AC of 13 + Dex and +2 (Accursed Shield) versus 15 (Half Plate) + 2 (shield) + Dex (Max 2). With a +3 from Dex, that's 18 versus 19. It's not bad, but scales slower than the 2014 version. Both can take a ring of protection (+1). Only the UA can take Bracers of Defense (+2). UA can take +x Light Armor, but mage armor plus Bracers of Defense are the same and Light Armor blocks the new Accursed Shield, so Warlock provided Light Armor is not an option (cutting off core class features is bad subclass design). The 2014 Hexblade can pursue +x Medium Armor AND Shields. So, I think that caps out as 21 (2 attuned items) versus 26 (1 attuned item). That's an extreme case, but I think it would help for, at least, Accursed Shield worked with armor. This wouldn't impact the comparison numerically, but allows for more defensive flexibility.
So, multiple subclasses are designed that light armor becomes not worthwhile unless you find high end magic armor, if you are willing to invest in dex. Both dancer, and draconic sorcerer have this structure.
While i dont think it would be. huge issue if they gave armor of shadows free, its also kind of weird that warlock invocations are designed to be something a warlock chooses to customize their classes in one direction or another, and yet people say its an innocation tax if someone wants to specialize. By that same definition, pact of the blade is also an innovcation tax for a hexblade because your extra attack with weapon when you cast a spell is a lot worse if you dont have a balde pact.
this is the iteration that people's feedback specifically was that its ok for a warlock subclass to assume and even highlight certain warlock choices (like blade pact) The previous UA had that design paradigm of assuming nothing about the warlocks choices, and people liked it less because of that.
As far as playing a different class, and not an updated one, thats ok. Certain things fit poorly into the 2024 framework whether its being too weak, to strong, or simply having an ill fitting design paradigm. The new versions of things are designed to work more smoothly within 2024 systems, but the old ones are OK if thats what you want. the 2014 hexblade is ill fitting with 2024. In the UA they tried making medium armor and shields more mainstream, and the response was that it was poorly balanced for arcane casters. So, in a world that decided arcane casters shouldnt get easy access to medium armor, Why would you give it to an arguably stronger warlock.
the only place where new subclasses may overwrite is adventuring league, which is self selecting things irrespective to the core rules, and is not an example of how the game is supposed to be played, but essentially one 'tables' house rules, primarily designed for ease of use and minimal variation in how the game is played across different time/places
but even outside of that its a revised version with backwards compatibility, i think they should make changes that fit its design, and not try to make things the same as before if it goes against that.
You only gave one good example since sorcerers don’t get light armor training. Dance Bards get an alternative AC calculation. That puts them in the same boat as Barbarians. They both have armor training, but their alternative AC calculation should be as good. Hexblade’s situational +2 is not as good as an AC calculation.
Not everyone is okay with having to Pact of the Blade either. I suggested bringing some version of hex warrior back to improve the subclass. Also if you don’t take pact of the blade your attack with a weapon after you cast a spell is not as good, but if you wear armor you can’t benefit at all from the +2. So one is optional (bad if you don’t take it) and the other is a blatant tax or you can’t use it at all. Or you could not take mage armor invocation and not wear light armor and then it’s a feature that literally makes the subclass worse defensively overall. The you sometimes have light armor feature.
I’m all for them making changes that fit the design of 2024. The +2 was a step in the correct direction. It doesn’t make sense that it doesn’t work with the light armor the warlock was wearing since level 1. It’s not a damage calculation like the dance bard.
imho it is a giant trap to take the +2 into account for AC calculations, 1) it only works on the cursed target,2) only if you are with 10' of the cursed target, 3) you dont have that many curses avail to even keep this up 50% of the time. If you have a battle with just 1 Target the curse AC bonus might be ok, but honestly how often do you battle just 1 target, 99% of the time you have 5+ targets, so if you have the bonus on one thats about 20% or 0.4 AC and i dont even go into how often you can keep that up
so the more accurate AC is UA Hexblade : Armor of Shadows + dex ( +3 is the highest that is reasonable ) + Bracers of Defense = 18 AC ( with 1 attunement ) 2014 Hexblade ( or 1 lvl ftr split i would go with hvy armor for the heavy armor master feat ) : full plate / breastplate +2 + defense style + shield +2 = 25 / 26 AC wich gives the UA a disadvantage of 35-40% higher chance of getting hit
its not only a invocation tax for the UA hexblade , but its a MC tax, and if you should play at a table with no MC ( there are some tables that do that ) the UA Hexblade is just unplayable
UA hexblade is every bit as playable as the other bladelocks are.
The idea that the +2 AC is only against the Cursed target is also incorrect.
Correct.
Accursed Shield. While you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a Shield, you gain a +2 bonus to AC while you are within10 feet of the target cursed by your Hexblade’s Curse.
You have to be within 10 feet of the cursed target. While within 10 ft of that target, you have a flat +2 bonus to the AC. Now, you can argue that the curse ability sucks in general, but it's factually inaccurate to claim that it only works against your cursed target. You can also claim that the +2 is irrelevant since you're going to be wearing studded leather to get that +2 AC bonus anyways, but here we are.
I don't like this hexblade. I think it's poorly designed. The answer is not, never has been, and never will be just giving it medium armor and a shield. People fixating on the medium armor and shields that you're not going to get is causing you to not talk about any of the other things that are trash about this version of the hexblade.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You only gave one good example since sorcerers don’t get light armor training. Dance Bards get an alternative AC calculation. That puts them in the same boat as Barbarians. They both have armor training, but their alternative AC calculation should be as good. Hexblade’s situational +2 is not as good as an AC calculation.
Not everyone is okay with having to Pact of the Blade either. I suggested bringing some version of hex warrior back to improve the subclass. Also if you don’t take pact of the blade your attack with a weapon after you cast a spell is not as good, but if you wear armor you can’t benefit at all from the +2. So one is optional (bad if you don’t take it) and the other is a blatant tax or you can’t use it at all. Or you could not take mage armor invocation and not wear light armor and then it’s a feature that literally makes the subclass worse defensively overall. The you sometimes have light armor feature.
I’m all for them making changes that fit the design of 2024. The +2 was a step in the correct direction. It doesn’t make sense that it doesn’t work with the light armor the warlock was wearing since level 1. It’s not a damage calculation like the dance bard.
whether its a damage calculation or not is irrelevant to the fact that your light armor does not work with it. You can get light armor, then at 3, you need to not use light armor to any use out of that feature (unarmored defense) Whether the alternate AC methods are as good depends on your stat investment and what armor you have access to. Accursed shield has different benefits and usecases than unarmored defense,. Features design is sometimes about enhancing playstyles, not just increasing numbers. But really, i dont think whether Unarmored defense is better than Accursed shield is relevant, The question is the idea of having subclass features which are more optimal based on what aspects of the main class you are using. How features compare to each other is a different question.
Warlocks are class where you can select some of your features. Calling the fact that certain subclasses features will be more optimal if you combine it with certain choices, a tax is weird. This is a feature that is most optimal if you use one aspect of your choices. Dual wielder feat doesnt have a twf fighting style tax, just because it has synergy with that feature and nick. Moon druid isnt paying an elemental fury primal strike tax because beast forms cant cast cantrips. Battlesmith isnt paying a replication tax because their feature works with magic weapons. Draconic sorcerers arent paying a spell tax because they can have a feature that gives them bonus damage on their dragon type.
I dont think the design paradigm that no subclass feature can reward a choice you make within the class is a good design paradigm. It drastically limits your design options the more customizable the class is, and its counter to what i think is a very good subclass design, creating thematic synergies based on the aspects of a class thatbplayers chose to focus on.
And by no means am I suggesting people universally wanted hexblade to focus more on melee and weapons. However there was a signifigant amount of feedback to that effect, and this iteration was based on that concept. This isnt the final, and it could be A/B testing. They may go back to the previous UA or remove aspects based on how it tests.
The point i was getting at is that this specific iteration of hexblade is designed with the idea that its going to clearly synergize more with a subset of the gameplay and features of warlock, its designed to work better if you select blade pact, if you choose certain defensive invocations and feats and if you focus on a melee playstyle. So, if you consider designs that synergize with a subset of a class options a tax, then this is the tax iteration, they may go back on some things if people dont actually prefer it now that they got to test it.
The concept of accursed armor is that you can achieve what they consider peak unarmored defense by staying close to your target. And also conceptually that a hexblades best defense is based on magic. If light armor gets the accursed effect, their best defense is based on hunting armor.
And maybe thats fine. up to them. I personally have no problem with the idea that hexblades armor is optimally magical, and i think people who choose the +AC invocation having better AC than not choosing it makes sense. But its not the end of the world if they go the other direction
they call something a tax when they want the feature without paying for it. If it were not viable without it, then I'd agree. The idea that hexblade is less viable in melee combat than, say, celestial is not correct, therefore any kind of global AC booster that you have to pay some sort of resource for is not a tax.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
they call something a tax when they want the feature without paying for it. If it were not viable without it, then I'd agree. The idea that hexblade is less viable in melee combat than, say, celestial is not correct, therefore any kind of global AC booster that you have to pay some sort of resource for is not a tax.
It’s either or tax or a wasted feature. If I wear light armor I can’t use the feature. Light armor is actually better than what the feature offers since it always grants its AC increase. Unless I first take mage armor and then the feature works as an occasional shield that doesn’t need to be held. If I wear light armor the feature literally doesn’t work.
imho it is a giant trap to take the +2 into account for AC calculations, 1) it only works on the cursed target,
This is incorrect. As long as you are within 10 feet of the cursed target, you get a +2 AC for all attacks, regardless of source. Barring extraordinary circumstances, you will get 1 to 5 uses per day (potentially when the class is released, it will include a magic item to effectively increase that limit, but don't count on it). In a multi-enemy encounter, it creates a weird scenario where to maximize the defensive benefit, you want to curse the target you want to go down last (or an ally), but to maximize the offensive capabilities, you want to curse the target who you will be focusing your attacks on the most (probably to bring them down first). If it hopped to a new target like a 1 minute duration Hex, it would be less of an issue.
So, multiple subclasses are designed that light armor becomes not worthwhile unless you find high end magic armor, if you are willing to invest in dex. Both dancer, and draconic sorcerer have this structure.
Both of those give you a feature that gives you an AC that is likely to be at least as good as light armor, depending on how much you invest in both Dexterity and Charisma. What does the UA give you as a subclass feature that is at least comparable to Light Armor AC?
I think they could make it work just fine without the restriction or restricting to wearing light armor or no armor. Accursed Shield is fine on top of Mage Armor, but being a flat bonus, scales poorly with the other restrictions in place. I would wonder if armor is restricted to prevent Armor of Hexes from getting out of hand, but that is not restricted by armor type (and it is not restricted in uses either). At level 3, you may be using Armor of Shadows + accursed shield or just Armor of Shadows, but at level 4+, will you continue with that or take Moderately Armored for Medium Armor, retrain out of Armor of Shadows, and ignore that accursed shield exists?
Also, if you are using one of the Legacy races with innate AC (such as Tortles), Accursed Shield and Bracers of Armor should give you the same or better AC than Armor of Shadows.
Or just Make a Draconic Sorcery Sorcerer 3 / Hexblade Warlock X.
I don't like this hexblade. I think it's poorly designed. The answer is not, never has been, and never will be just giving it medium armor and a shield. People fixating on the medium armor and shields that you're not going to get is causing you to not talk about any of the other things that are trash about this version of the hexblade.
I don't think there is a problem with giving them Medium Armor proficiency. Things get out of hand when you add in Shield proficiency since you can double up on magic item bonuses. If you went down this route, you may want to explicitly restrict their abilities to while not using a shield and wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor ....
they call something a tax when they want the feature without paying for it. If it were not viable without it, then I'd agree. The idea that hexblade is less viable in melee combat than, say, celestial is not correct, therefore any kind of global AC booster that you have to pay some sort of resource for is not a tax.
So, to flip what you are saying, the melee focused Warlock subclass is as effective as in melee as the healing focused Warlock subclass. The Celestial Warlock is notably better at healing than other Warlocks, correct? I don't think the same is true for the Hexblade.
What does the melee focused subclass add to melee to stand out and survive as a frontliner? MMO "Tanking" is rare in D&D so being a frontline striker does need some way to be durable, by avoiding hits, enduring hits, or recovering from hits. Armor of Shadows is a decent example of the last case, but it comes at level 10 (even though it could probably replace Accursed Shield).
You only gave one good example since sorcerers don’t get light armor training. Dance Bards get an alternative AC calculation. That puts them in the same boat as Barbarians. They both have armor training, but their alternative AC calculation should be as good. Hexblade’s situational +2 is not as good as an AC calculation.
Not everyone is okay with having to Pact of the Blade either. I suggested bringing some version of hex warrior back to improve the subclass. Also if you don’t take pact of the blade your attack with a weapon after you cast a spell is not as good, but if you wear armor you can’t benefit at all from the +2. So one is optional (bad if you don’t take it) and the other is a blatant tax or you can’t use it at all. Or you could not take mage armor invocation and not wear light armor and then it’s a feature that literally makes the subclass worse defensively overall. The you sometimes have light armor feature.
I’m all for them making changes that fit the design of 2024. The +2 was a step in the correct direction. It doesn’t make sense that it doesn’t work with the light armor the warlock was wearing since level 1. It’s not a damage calculation like the dance bard.
whether its a damage calculation or not is irrelevant to the fact that your light armor does not work with it. You can get light armor, then at 3, you need to not use light armor to any use out of that feature (unarmored defense) Whether the alternate AC methods are as good depends on your stat investment and what armor you have access to. Accursed shield has different benefits and usecases than unarmored defense,. Features design is sometimes about enhancing playstyles, not just increasing numbers. But really, i dont think whether Unarmored defense is better than Accursed shield is relevant, The question is the idea of having subclass features which are more optimal based on what aspects of the main class you are using. How features compare to each other is a different question.
Warlocks are class where you can select some of your features. Calling the fact that certain subclasses features will be more optimal if you combine it with certain choices, a tax is weird. This is a feature that is most optimal if you use one aspect of your choices. Dual wielder feat doesnt have a twf fighting style tax, just because it has synergy with that feature and nick. Moon druid isnt paying an elemental fury primal strike tax because beast forms cant cast cantrips. Battlesmith isnt paying a replication tax because their feature works with magic weapons. Draconic sorcerers arent paying a spell tax because they can have a feature that gives them bonus damage on their dragon type.
I dont think the design paradigm that no subclass feature can reward a choice you make within the class is a good design paradigm. It drastically limits your design options the more customizable the class is, and its counter to what i think is a very good subclass design, creating thematic synergies based on the aspects of a class thatbplayers chose to focus on.
And by no means am I suggesting people universally wanted hexblade to focus more on melee and weapons. However there was a signifigant amount of feedback to that effect, and this iteration was based on that concept. This isnt the final, and it could be A/B testing. They may go back to the previous UA or remove aspects based on how it tests.
The point i was getting at is that this specific iteration of hexblade is designed with the idea that its going to clearly synergize more with a subset of the gameplay and features of warlock, its designed to work better if you select blade pact, if you choose certain defensive invocations and feats and if you focus on a melee playstyle. So, if you consider designs that synergize with a subset of a class options a tax, then this is the tax iteration, they may go back on some things if people dont actually prefer it now that they got to test it.
The concept of accursed armor is that you can achieve what they consider peak unarmored defense by staying close to your target. And also conceptually that a hexblades best defense is based on magic. If light armor gets the accursed effect, their best defense is based on hunting armor.
And maybe thats fine. up to them. I personally have no problem with the idea that hexblades armor is optimally magical, and i think people who choose the +AC invocation having better AC than not choosing it makes sense. But its not the end of the world if they go the other direction
It’s not irrelevant. Bringing up a sorcerer was irrelevant in this conversation because they don’t have any armor training and that is what I was correcting you about. Also it’s not irrelevant that Accursed Shield isn’t an AC calculation. It’s very relevant. I don’t see other features that limit your base class without giving you something that can be equal to or better than what the base class offers. Accursed Shield is an objective downgrade unless you take the mage armor invocation. At which point it functions as a floating shield when conditions are met. There really isn’t a reason for this to not work with light armor. I can see reasons to not allow this with the medium and heavy, but it’s an occasional shield it shouldn’t require you to take an invocation to use it. It’s either invocation tax or wasted feature. You can decide which you consider it.
You can get light armor, then at 3, you need to not use light armor to any use out of that feature (unarmored defense) Whether the alternate AC methods are as good depends on your stat investment and what armor you have access to. Accursed shield has different benefits and usecases than unarmored defense,. Features design is sometimes about enhancing playstyles, not just increasing numbers. But really, i dont think whether Unarmored defense is better than Accursed shield is relevant, The question is the idea of having subclass features which are more optimal based on what aspects of the main class you are using. How features compare to each other is a different question.
Of course it's relevant. You have to compare what other level 3 characters are getting to determine balance. Unyielding Will is good, but it's once per Long Rest, Hungering Hex is will be situational as to whether it actually makes you more durable, and Accursed Shield depends on discarding a class feature without providing an adequate replacement. College of Dance Bard is a good stick to measure against. Both are melee front liners. College of Dance gets Unarmored Defense which probably gives you an AC around 15/16 or so that can scale up 18+ (theoretically 20 if you can manage 20s in both Dexterity and Charisma), Agile Strikes gives extra attacks, and Bardic Damage makes your unarmed strikes use Dexterity and deal 1d6 that scales up to 1d12.
By contrast, the Hexblade level 3 features start out with a comparable AC of 15 (17 with accursed shield up), but nothing about them scales other than number of curses per day. Hungering Hex either doesn't trigger during the fight or it does and you lose the AC bonus from the accursed shield. Unyielding Will is cool ... once.
You can get light armor, then at 3, you need to not use light armor to any use out of that feature (unarmored defense) Whether the alternate AC methods are as good depends on your stat investment and what armor you have access to. Accursed shield has different benefits and usecases than unarmored defense,. Features design is sometimes about enhancing playstyles, not just increasing numbers. But really, i dont think whether Unarmored defense is better than Accursed shield is relevant, The question is the idea of having subclass features which are more optimal based on what aspects of the main class you are using. How features compare to each other is a different question.
Of course it's relevant. You have to compare what other level 3 characters are getting to determine balance. Unyielding Will is good, but it's once per Long Rest, Hungering Hex is will be situational as to whether it actually makes you more durable, and Accursed Shield depends on discarding a class feature without providing an adequate replacement. College of Dance Bard is a good stick to measure against. Both are melee front liners. College of Dance gets Unarmored Defense which probably gives you an AC around 15/16 or so that can scale up 18+ (theoretically 20 if you can manage 20s in both Dexterity and Charisma), Agile Strikes gives extra attacks, and Bardic Damage makes your unarmed strikes use Dexterity and deal 1d6 that scales up to 1d12.
By contrast, the Hexblade level 3 features start out with a comparable AC of 15 (17 with accursed shield up), but nothing about them scales other than number of curses per day. Hungering Hex either doesn't trigger during the fight or it does and you lose the AC bonus from the accursed shield. Unyielding Will is cool ... once.
Armor of shadows is a class feature for people who want more ac than light armor offers, just like a druid who wants AC takes primal order: warden.
at level 3, a hexblade who cares about AC based defense has 17chr 16 dex and 14 con. they would have 16 ac with armor of shadows, and 18 AC with armor of shadows.It scales in strength with dex stats. just like monk
at level 3, monk, dancer barbarian and draconic sorcerer cap at 16 AC. (3+3 in stats), medium armor IF you can get the best one would be 17, and give stealth disadvantage. This means they have more potential AC than monk dancer and sorcerer, and equal to a barbarian with a shield who isnt using reckless attacks.
not only that, but warlock has false life which always gives 12 Hp, so warlock can have more starting HP than dancer, monk, and even barbarian. at level 3.
they get arcane vigor and shield from spells automatically, and the class has access to armor of agathys, (which synergizes with false life and 1 a day unyielding will) mirror images, and has blade ward as a cantrip.
And thats why you cant compare.subclasses in a vacuum.
a bard with the exact same stat spread has 16 AC and 24 hp. while a warlock has 16 AC and 36 hp(with false life) and 18 AC when close to target, recovers hp, and deals damage every time they succeed a concentration check ( the damage portion is not once a day).
fact is warlock has a lot of base features that come around early that allow them to specialize into surviability, improve basic damage, and add utility. And thats why unarmored defense isnt in comparison to accursed shield, armor of shadows is designed to be warlocks version of unarmored defense. As for replacing a class feature, yeah thats how armor proficiency works. if druid chooses primal order: warden, their light armor proficiency is generally a worse option. armor of shadows is essentially +1 AC over light armor, accursed shield is designed to enhance that option.
Warlocks are not struggling to melee/survive at level 1-5 at all.
You only gave one good example since sorcerers don’t get light armor training. Dance Bards get an alternative AC calculation. That puts them in the same boat as Barbarians. They both have armor training, but their alternative AC calculation should be as good. Hexblade’s situational +2 is not as good as an AC calculation.
Not everyone is okay with having to Pact of the Blade either. I suggested bringing some version of hex warrior back to improve the subclass. Also if you don’t take pact of the blade your attack with a weapon after you cast a spell is not as good, but if you wear armor you can’t benefit at all from the +2. So one is optional (bad if you don’t take it) and the other is a blatant tax or you can’t use it at all. Or you could not take mage armor invocation and not wear light armor and then it’s a feature that literally makes the subclass worse defensively overall. The you sometimes have light armor feature.
I’m all for them making changes that fit the design of 2024. The +2 was a step in the correct direction. It doesn’t make sense that it doesn’t work with the light armor the warlock was wearing since level 1. It’s not a damage calculation like the dance bard.
whether its a damage calculation or not is irrelevant to the fact that your light armor does not work with it. You can get light armor, then at 3, you need to not use light armor to any use out of that feature (unarmored defense) Whether the alternate AC methods are as good depends on your stat investment and what armor you have access to. Accursed shield has different benefits and usecases than unarmored defense,. Features design is sometimes about enhancing playstyles, not just increasing numbers. But really, i dont think whether Unarmored defense is better than Accursed shield is relevant, The question is the idea of having subclass features which are more optimal based on what aspects of the main class you are using. How features compare to each other is a different question.
Warlocks are class where you can select some of your features. Calling the fact that certain subclasses features will be more optimal if you combine it with certain choices, a tax is weird. This is a feature that is most optimal if you use one aspect of your choices. Dual wielder feat doesnt have a twf fighting style tax, just because it has synergy with that feature and nick. Moon druid isnt paying an elemental fury primal strike tax because beast forms cant cast cantrips. Battlesmith isnt paying a replication tax because their feature works with magic weapons. Draconic sorcerers arent paying a spell tax because they can have a feature that gives them bonus damage on their dragon type.
I dont think the design paradigm that no subclass feature can reward a choice you make within the class is a good design paradigm. It drastically limits your design options the more customizable the class is, and its counter to what i think is a very good subclass design, creating thematic synergies based on the aspects of a class thatbplayers chose to focus on.
And by no means am I suggesting people universally wanted hexblade to focus more on melee and weapons. However there was a signifigant amount of feedback to that effect, and this iteration was based on that concept. This isnt the final, and it could be A/B testing. They may go back to the previous UA or remove aspects based on how it tests.
The point i was getting at is that this specific iteration of hexblade is designed with the idea that its going to clearly synergize more with a subset of the gameplay and features of warlock, its designed to work better if you select blade pact, if you choose certain defensive invocations and feats and if you focus on a melee playstyle. So, if you consider designs that synergize with a subset of a class options a tax, then this is the tax iteration, they may go back on some things if people dont actually prefer it now that they got to test it.
The concept of accursed armor is that you can achieve what they consider peak unarmored defense by staying close to your target. And also conceptually that a hexblades best defense is based on magic. If light armor gets the accursed effect, their best defense is based on hunting armor.
And maybe thats fine. up to them. I personally have no problem with the idea that hexblades armor is optimally magical, and i think people who choose the +AC invocation having better AC than not choosing it makes sense. But its not the end of the world if they go the other direction
It’s not irrelevant. Bringing up a sorcerer was irrelevant in this conversation because they don’t have any armor training and that is what I was correcting you about. Also it’s not irrelevant that Accursed Shield isn’t an AC calculation. It’s very relevant. I don’t see other features that limit your base class without giving you something that can be equal to or better than what the base class offers. Accursed Shield is an objective downgrade unless you take the mage armor invocation. At which point it functions as a floating shield when conditions are met. There really isn’t a reason for this to not work with light armor. I can see reasons to not allow this with the medium and heavy, but it’s an occasional shield it shouldn’t require you to take an invocation to use it. It’s either invocation tax or wasted feature. You can decide which you consider it.
the feature doesnt limit the base class, you can still use light armor, and get the exact same benefit you got using light armor before. Warlock's unarmored defense feature is armor of dhadows. which gives you greater defense than light armor while unarmored, and grows based on your dex stat investment.
When i say its irrelevent, i mean its irrelevent to the question of should subclass features be built with specific synergies based on the main class, and main class choices
there are many features which only give a benefit if the player chooses a certain playstyle, builds, action, or features, or uses certain items. Many features are not a benefit for all builds.Many subclasses are designed to take advantage of a small subset of
barbarian's unarmored defense is only a benefit if you have certain attribute spreads. 8 mod points between dex and con,
berserker frenzy only provides any benefit if you use reckless attack.
path of the wildheart: falcon only works if you are not wearing any armor (just like accursed shield)
Paladin, noble genie UA, level 3 Genies Splendor. only works if you wear light armor, or unarmored.
Arcane Archer only does anything for you if you use ranged weapons with the ammunition property.
almost every wizard subclass has features which only benefit certain spell schools
rogues soul knife, psychic blades feature only benefits you if you use the psychic blade in your attack action, (thereby limiting your weapon/mastery selection)
draconic sorcerer kevel 6 feature elemental affinity only gives a benefit if you select damage spells of specific elements.
Some ranger subclasses have synergies while using HM, which not all rangers use.
artificer battle smith's Arcane Empowerment does nothing if you arent using magic weapons. (and the only way to get that built into the class is using replications on weapons)
its totally the case that many features do nothing unless you make certain choices about build/playstyle etc. multiple that depend on what type of armor/unarmored you are.
and thats not a tax, the features/subclasses are made to work with what the class gives you. Invocations are class features for specializing into playstyles or roles. instead of giving every warlock a d10die, they let you get false life max roll. Instead of medium armor, they give you armor of shadows, instead of con proficency, eldritch mind. instead of martial weapon proficiency, pact of the blade. Thete isnt a food tax to use a grill, if you were also given money to buy food. They gave you invocations to 'buy' defense, health, mobility, offense. Certain subclasses expect you to use these choices to get the most out of the features
There's no free lunch. It's not a tax to spend invocations on things you want to perform better in a specific way. That's customization and it's good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You can’t use it unless you take the invocation. It doesn’t work. It’s a poorly designed feature. It’s already limited to close range with a cursed target. There was no real reason to limit it to only be used with mage armor or unarmored Defense from a multiclass. It’s a tax to get it to work on a non multiclass warlock. If I wear light armor it doesn’t work.
I’ll grant two separate conditions for a short duration +2 AC boost is a bit much. Maybe it should be Light Armor or no armor just to fence out the gimmicky “Fighter for my first level” builds. Then it’s a choice between investing in DEX and possibly magic armor or an extra Invocation.
You can’t use it unless you take the invocation. It doesn’t work. It’s a poorly designed feature. It’s already limited to close range with a cursed target. There was no real reason to limit it to only be used with mage armor or unarmored Defense from a multiclass. It’s a tax to get it to work on a non multiclass warlock. If I wear light armor it doesn’t work.
As i pointed out, many subclass features only 'work" if you use specific subsets of the class features.
Invocations are class features, the same as any other. They are customizable to allow the warlock to specialize. Warlock is expressly designed to be a class that gets to select its features.
Subclasses are sometimes built to specialize with certain type of play or features within the class.
the only difference between Barbarian:wild heart needing unarmored for its level 14 Power of the wilds falcon feature, and accursed shield is that armored shadows is a custom feature and and unarmored defense is not custom.
My objection here isnt the power level of light armor getting the feature, its the idea that customizable classes/features cant have any synergies/features that develop them because anything that builds upon a choice a player makes is a 'tax' That just means that the more customizable a class is, the less it can develop any of its themes/playstyles and features. Which is exactly the opposite of the purpose of a customizable class.
if there is a customizable class that allows you to be a martial, or a full caster, Not being allowed to design a subclass that develops or expands on those choices is the opposite of the design paradigm of customizable class. Then you get a weird situation where every subclass feature has to be outside of this major choice as nto what type of playstyle the player wants
Is having a cleric subclass built around being an unstoppable tank lets call it "Juggernaut" that has a feature that says, while wearing heavy armor ........ Inherently bad design because cleric allowed a player to choose between heavy armor and being a scholar? Is it a 'tax' to create a subclass that builds on an option?
The beef i have is less pressing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
imho it is a giant trap to take the +2 into account for AC calculations, 1) it only works on the cursed target, 2) only if you are with 10' of the cursed target, 3) you dont have that many curses avail to even keep this up 50% of the time. If you have a battle with just 1 Target the curse AC bonus might be ok, but honestly how often do you battle just 1 target, 99% of the time you have 5+ targets, so if you have the bonus on one thats about 20% or 0.4 AC and i dont even go into how often you can keep that up
so the more accurate AC is
UA Hexblade : Armor of Shadows + dex ( +3 is the highest that is reasonable ) + Bracers of Defense
= 18 AC ( with 1 attunement )
2014 Hexblade ( or 1 lvl ftr split i would go with hvy armor for the heavy armor master feat ) :
full plate / breastplate +2 + defense style + shield +2
= 25 / 26 AC wich gives the UA a disadvantage of 35-40% higher chance of getting hit
its not only a invocation tax for the UA hexblade , but its a MC tax, and if you should play at a table with no MC ( there are some tables that do that ) the UA Hexblade is just unplayable
Yes. It's important to remember MC remains an OPTION, not an assumed allowed route. As a DM, I generally don't allow MC unless there are strong RP-related reasons. I really dislike dips for optimization/maxing out.
With new Hexblade go Hexblade/Swashbuckler for nice one on one combat?
UA hexblade is every bit as playable as the other bladelocks are.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The idea that the +2 AC is only against the Cursed target is also incorrect.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
as has been said, accursed shield is a bonus to AC as long as you are close to a cursed target. its not only for the cursed target.
There is a difference between what you would like to have, and what is unplayable, especially relative to other classes.
so by your definition, Monk, and rogue are simply unplayable classes.
25-26 AC has never been the minimum requirement for any class ever. Magic items are not required to play, and you may never get any.
3 is not the cap on Dex investment, every class can get 20 in two stats, if it wants to. if you are choosing not to go past 3 dex, its because you are gaining something else you find more valuable than 2 more AC.
The class with 25-26 AC in 2024 would not be well balanced.
So, multiple subclasses are designed that light armor becomes not worthwhile unless you find high end magic armor, if you are willing to invest in dex. Both dancer, and draconic sorcerer have this structure.
While i dont think it would be. huge issue if they gave armor of shadows free, its also kind of weird that warlock invocations are designed to be something a warlock chooses to customize their classes in one direction or another, and yet people say its an innocation tax if someone wants to specialize. By that same definition, pact of the blade is also an innovcation tax for a hexblade because your extra attack with weapon when you cast a spell is a lot worse if you dont have a balde pact.
this is the iteration that people's feedback specifically was that its ok for a warlock subclass to assume and even highlight certain warlock choices (like blade pact) The previous UA had that design paradigm of assuming nothing about the warlocks choices, and people liked it less because of that.
As far as playing a different class, and not an updated one, thats ok. Certain things fit poorly into the 2024 framework whether its being too weak, to strong, or simply having an ill fitting design paradigm. The new versions of things are designed to work more smoothly within 2024 systems, but the old ones are OK if thats what you want. the 2014 hexblade is ill fitting with 2024. In the UA they tried making medium armor and shields more mainstream, and the response was that it was poorly balanced for arcane casters. So, in a world that decided arcane casters shouldnt get easy access to medium armor, Why would you give it to an arguably stronger warlock.
the only place where new subclasses may overwrite is adventuring league, which is self selecting things irrespective to the core rules, and is not an example of how the game is supposed to be played, but essentially one 'tables' house rules, primarily designed for ease of use and minimal variation in how the game is played across different time/places
but even outside of that its a revised version with backwards compatibility, i think they should make changes that fit its design, and not try to make things the same as before if it goes against that.
You only gave one good example since sorcerers don’t get light armor training. Dance Bards get an alternative AC calculation. That puts them in the same boat as Barbarians. They both have armor training, but their alternative AC calculation should be as good. Hexblade’s situational +2 is not as good as an AC calculation.
Not everyone is okay with having to Pact of the Blade either. I suggested bringing some version of hex warrior back to improve the subclass. Also if you don’t take pact of the blade your attack with a weapon after you cast a spell is not as good, but if you wear armor you can’t benefit at all from the +2. So one is optional (bad if you don’t take it) and the other is a blatant tax or you can’t use it at all. Or you could not take mage armor invocation and not wear light armor and then it’s a feature that literally makes the subclass worse defensively overall. The you sometimes have light armor feature.
I’m all for them making changes that fit the design of 2024. The +2 was a step in the correct direction. It doesn’t make sense that it doesn’t work with the light armor the warlock was wearing since level 1. It’s not a damage calculation like the dance bard.
Correct.
Accursed Shield. While you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a Shield, you gain a +2 bonus to AC while you are within10 feet of the target cursed by your Hexblade’s Curse.
You have to be within 10 feet of the cursed target. While within 10 ft of that target, you have a flat +2 bonus to the AC. Now, you can argue that the curse ability sucks in general, but it's factually inaccurate to claim that it only works against your cursed target. You can also claim that the +2 is irrelevant since you're going to be wearing studded leather to get that +2 AC bonus anyways, but here we are.
I don't like this hexblade. I think it's poorly designed. The answer is not, never has been, and never will be just giving it medium armor and a shield. People fixating on the medium armor and shields that you're not going to get is causing you to not talk about any of the other things that are trash about this version of the hexblade.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
whether its a damage calculation or not is irrelevant to the fact that your light armor does not work with it. You can get light armor, then at 3, you need to not use light armor to any use out of that feature (unarmored defense) Whether the alternate AC methods are as good depends on your stat investment and what armor you have access to. Accursed shield has different benefits and usecases than unarmored defense,. Features design is sometimes about enhancing playstyles, not just increasing numbers. But really, i dont think whether Unarmored defense is better than Accursed shield is relevant, The question is the idea of having subclass features which are more optimal based on what aspects of the main class you are using. How features compare to each other is a different question.
Warlocks are class where you can select some of your features. Calling the fact that certain subclasses features will be more optimal if you combine it with certain choices, a tax is weird. This is a feature that is most optimal if you use one aspect of your choices. Dual wielder feat doesnt have a twf fighting style tax, just because it has synergy with that feature and nick. Moon druid isnt paying an elemental fury primal strike tax because beast forms cant cast cantrips. Battlesmith isnt paying a replication tax because their feature works with magic weapons. Draconic sorcerers arent paying a spell tax because they can have a feature that gives them bonus damage on their dragon type.
I dont think the design paradigm that no subclass feature can reward a choice you make within the class is a good design paradigm. It drastically limits your design options the more customizable the class is, and its counter to what i think is a very good subclass design, creating thematic synergies based on the aspects of a class thatbplayers chose to focus on.
And by no means am I suggesting people universally wanted hexblade to focus more on melee and weapons. However there was a signifigant amount of feedback to that effect, and this iteration was based on that concept. This isnt the final, and it could be A/B testing. They may go back to the previous UA or remove aspects based on how it tests.
The point i was getting at is that this specific iteration of hexblade is designed with the idea that its going to clearly synergize more with a subset of the gameplay and features of warlock, its designed to work better if you select blade pact, if you choose certain defensive invocations and feats and if you focus on a melee playstyle. So, if you consider designs that synergize with a subset of a class options a tax, then this is the tax iteration, they may go back on some things if people dont actually prefer it now that they got to test it.
The concept of accursed armor is that you can achieve what they consider peak unarmored defense by staying close to your target. And also conceptually that a hexblades best defense is based on magic. If light armor gets the accursed effect, their best defense is based on hunting armor.
And maybe thats fine. up to them. I personally have no problem with the idea that hexblades armor is optimally magical, and i think people who choose the +AC invocation having better AC than not choosing it makes sense. But its not the end of the world if they go the other direction
^
they call something a tax when they want the feature without paying for it. If it were not viable without it, then I'd agree. The idea that hexblade is less viable in melee combat than, say, celestial is not correct, therefore any kind of global AC booster that you have to pay some sort of resource for is not a tax.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It’s either or tax or a wasted feature. If I wear light armor I can’t use the feature. Light armor is actually better than what the feature offers since it always grants its AC increase. Unless I first take mage armor and then the feature works as an occasional shield that doesn’t need to be held. If I wear light armor the feature literally doesn’t work.
This is incorrect. As long as you are within 10 feet of the cursed target, you get a +2 AC for all attacks, regardless of source. Barring extraordinary circumstances, you will get 1 to 5 uses per day (potentially when the class is released, it will include a magic item to effectively increase that limit, but don't count on it). In a multi-enemy encounter, it creates a weird scenario where to maximize the defensive benefit, you want to curse the target you want to go down last (or an ally), but to maximize the offensive capabilities, you want to curse the target who you will be focusing your attacks on the most (probably to bring them down first). If it hopped to a new target like a 1 minute duration Hex, it would be less of an issue.
Both of those give you a feature that gives you an AC that is likely to be at least as good as light armor, depending on how much you invest in both Dexterity and Charisma. What does the UA give you as a subclass feature that is at least comparable to Light Armor AC?
I think they could make it work just fine without the restriction or restricting to wearing light armor or no armor. Accursed Shield is fine on top of Mage Armor, but being a flat bonus, scales poorly with the other restrictions in place. I would wonder if armor is restricted to prevent Armor of Hexes from getting out of hand, but that is not restricted by armor type (and it is not restricted in uses either). At level 3, you may be using Armor of Shadows + accursed shield or just Armor of Shadows, but at level 4+, will you continue with that or take Moderately Armored for Medium Armor, retrain out of Armor of Shadows, and ignore that accursed shield exists?
Also, if you are using one of the Legacy races with innate AC (such as Tortles), Accursed Shield and Bracers of Armor should give you the same or better AC than Armor of Shadows.
Or just Make a Draconic Sorcery Sorcerer 3 / Hexblade Warlock X.
I don't think there is a problem with giving them Medium Armor proficiency. Things get out of hand when you add in Shield proficiency since you can double up on magic item bonuses. If you went down this route, you may want to explicitly restrict their abilities to while not using a shield and wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor ....
So, to flip what you are saying, the melee focused Warlock subclass is as effective as in melee as the healing focused Warlock subclass. The Celestial Warlock is notably better at healing than other Warlocks, correct? I don't think the same is true for the Hexblade.
What does the melee focused subclass add to melee to stand out and survive as a frontliner? MMO "Tanking" is rare in D&D so being a frontline striker does need some way to be durable, by avoiding hits, enduring hits, or recovering from hits. Armor of Shadows is a decent example of the last case, but it comes at level 10 (even though it could probably replace Accursed Shield).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It’s not irrelevant. Bringing up a sorcerer was irrelevant in this conversation because they don’t have any armor training and that is what I was correcting you about. Also it’s not irrelevant that Accursed Shield isn’t an AC calculation. It’s very relevant. I don’t see other features that limit your base class without giving you something that can be equal to or better than what the base class offers. Accursed Shield is an objective downgrade unless you take the mage armor invocation. At which point it functions as a floating shield when conditions are met. There really isn’t a reason for this to not work with light armor. I can see reasons to not allow this with the medium and heavy, but it’s an occasional shield it shouldn’t require you to take an invocation to use it. It’s either invocation tax or wasted feature. You can decide which you consider it.
Of course it's relevant. You have to compare what other level 3 characters are getting to determine balance. Unyielding Will is good, but it's once per Long Rest, Hungering Hex is will be situational as to whether it actually makes you more durable, and Accursed Shield depends on discarding a class feature without providing an adequate replacement. College of Dance Bard is a good stick to measure against. Both are melee front liners. College of Dance gets Unarmored Defense which probably gives you an AC around 15/16 or so that can scale up 18+ (theoretically 20 if you can manage 20s in both Dexterity and Charisma), Agile Strikes gives extra attacks, and Bardic Damage makes your unarmed strikes use Dexterity and deal 1d6 that scales up to 1d12.
By contrast, the Hexblade level 3 features start out with a comparable AC of 15 (17 with accursed shield up), but nothing about them scales other than number of curses per day. Hungering Hex either doesn't trigger during the fight or it does and you lose the AC bonus from the accursed shield. Unyielding Will is cool ... once.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Armor of shadows is a class feature for people who want more ac than light armor offers, just like a druid who wants AC takes primal order: warden.
at level 3, a hexblade who cares about AC based defense has 17chr 16 dex and 14 con. they would have 16 ac with armor of shadows, and 18 AC with armor of shadows.It scales in strength with dex stats. just like monk
at level 3, monk, dancer barbarian and draconic sorcerer cap at 16 AC. (3+3 in stats), medium armor IF you can get the best one would be 17, and give stealth disadvantage. This means they have more potential AC than monk dancer and sorcerer, and equal to a barbarian with a shield who isnt using reckless attacks.
not only that, but warlock has false life which always gives 12 Hp, so warlock can have more starting HP than dancer, monk, and even barbarian. at level 3.
they get arcane vigor and shield from spells automatically, and the class has access to armor of agathys, (which synergizes with false life and 1 a day unyielding will) mirror images, and has blade ward as a cantrip.
And thats why you cant compare.subclasses in a vacuum.
a bard with the exact same stat spread has 16 AC and 24 hp. while a warlock has 16 AC and 36 hp(with false life) and 18 AC when close to target, recovers hp, and deals damage every time they succeed a concentration check ( the damage portion is not once a day).
fact is warlock has a lot of base features that come around early that allow them to specialize into surviability, improve basic damage, and add utility. And thats why unarmored defense isnt in comparison to accursed shield, armor of shadows is designed to be warlocks version of unarmored defense. As for replacing a class feature, yeah thats how armor proficiency works. if druid chooses primal order: warden, their light armor proficiency is generally a worse option. armor of shadows is essentially +1 AC over light armor, accursed shield is designed to enhance that option.
Warlocks are not struggling to melee/survive at level 1-5 at all.
the feature doesnt limit the base class, you can still use light armor, and get the exact same benefit you got using light armor before. Warlock's unarmored defense feature is armor of dhadows. which gives you greater defense than light armor while unarmored, and grows based on your dex stat investment.
When i say its irrelevent, i mean its irrelevent to the question of should subclass features be built with specific synergies based on the main class, and main class choices
there are many features which only give a benefit if the player chooses a certain playstyle, builds, action, or features, or uses certain items. Many features are not a benefit for all builds.Many subclasses are designed to take advantage of a small subset of
barbarian's unarmored defense is only a benefit if you have certain attribute spreads. 8 mod points between dex and con,
berserker frenzy only provides any benefit if you use reckless attack.
path of the wildheart: falcon only works if you are not wearing any armor (just like accursed shield)
Paladin, noble genie UA, level 3 Genies Splendor. only works if you wear light armor, or unarmored.
Arcane Archer only does anything for you if you use ranged weapons with the ammunition property.
almost every wizard subclass has features which only benefit certain spell schools
rogues soul knife, psychic blades feature only benefits you if you use the psychic blade in your attack action, (thereby limiting your weapon/mastery selection)
draconic sorcerer kevel 6 feature elemental affinity only gives a benefit if you select damage spells of specific elements.
Some ranger subclasses have synergies while using HM, which not all rangers use.
artificer battle smith's Arcane Empowerment does nothing if you arent using magic weapons. (and the only way to get that built into the class is using replications on weapons)
its totally the case that many features do nothing unless you make certain choices about build/playstyle etc. multiple that depend on what type of armor/unarmored you are.
and thats not a tax, the features/subclasses are made to work with what the class gives you. Invocations are class features for specializing into playstyles or roles. instead of giving every warlock a d10die, they let you get false life max roll. Instead of medium armor, they give you armor of shadows, instead of con proficency, eldritch mind. instead of martial weapon proficiency, pact of the blade. Thete isnt a food tax to use a grill, if you were also given money to buy food. They gave you invocations to 'buy' defense, health, mobility, offense. Certain subclasses expect you to use these choices to get the most out of the features
^100%
There's no free lunch. It's not a tax to spend invocations on things you want to perform better in a specific way. That's customization and it's good.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
You can’t use it unless you take the invocation. It doesn’t work. It’s a poorly designed feature. It’s already limited to close range with a cursed target. There was no real reason to limit it to only be used with mage armor or unarmored Defense from a multiclass. It’s a tax to get it to work on a non multiclass warlock. If I wear light armor it doesn’t work.
I’ll grant two separate conditions for a short duration +2 AC boost is a bit much. Maybe it should be Light Armor or no armor just to fence out the gimmicky “Fighter for my first level” builds. Then it’s a choice between investing in DEX and possibly magic armor or an extra Invocation.
As i pointed out, many subclass features only 'work" if you use specific subsets of the class features.
Invocations are class features, the same as any other. They are customizable to allow the warlock to specialize. Warlock is expressly designed to be a class that gets to select its features.
Subclasses are sometimes built to specialize with certain type of play or features within the class.
the only difference between Barbarian:wild heart needing unarmored for its level 14 Power of the wilds falcon feature, and accursed shield is that armored shadows is a custom feature and and unarmored defense is not custom.
My objection here isnt the power level of light armor getting the feature, its the idea that customizable classes/features cant have any synergies/features that develop them because anything that builds upon a choice a player makes is a 'tax' That just means that the more customizable a class is, the less it can develop any of its themes/playstyles and features. Which is exactly the opposite of the purpose of a customizable class.
if there is a customizable class that allows you to be a martial, or a full caster, Not being allowed to design a subclass that develops or expands on those choices is the opposite of the design paradigm of customizable class. Then you get a weird situation where every subclass feature has to be outside of this major choice as nto what type of playstyle the player wants
Is having a cleric subclass built around being an unstoppable tank lets call it "Juggernaut" that has a feature that says, while wearing heavy armor ........ Inherently bad design because cleric allowed a player to choose between heavy armor and being a scholar? Is it a 'tax' to create a subclass that builds on an option?
The beef i have is less pressing