Players don’t control what magic items they get. It requires GM fiat to get the exact magic item you want. As a GM I usually don’t give players the exact thing they are asking for, but something similar instead.
No one said that players control the magic items they get.
In the context of this conversation, that is basically saying you don't give them the defensive item the exact defensive item they are asking for, but a similar defensive item instead. That's fine, but it doesn't change that there is an expectation of magic items being received, regardless of the specific items awarded, regardless of whether the GM uses the suggested magic item wish list, the magic items as written in a published adventure (your party of 4 wizards find +1 Plate Armor, Yay!), a random table/treasure generator, or some other method, there is a standard established by official sources. You aren't expected to break the balance by underawarding or overdoing (unless you go nuts), but there is a standard nonetheless.
My only point is that doesn’t matter because the player doesn’t pick what magic items they get. When a class is designed you don’t design it based on what magic items they could get even if there is an assumption they will get some magic items. This conversation is being derailed because y’all are arguing over whether or not magic items are considered in design. Since players don’t pick their magic items every player at different tables will have different experiences with magic items. That should have nothing to do with the design of a subclass.
Items, particularly magic items, absolutely factor into a class's design because it affects the options available to them. Having a Warlock in +X plate with a +X shield wouldn't be untouchable, but has multiple impacts (reduced reliance on Dexterity and defensive spells/invocations being big impacts). Now, no one has been clamoring for a heavy armor wearing hexblade, but it is notable that if the subclass grants medium armor proficiency, it's just one feat away. Even with medium armor proficiency, there are some interesting options (nonmagic armor will get you to AC 16 with a 14 DEX, but magic armor can get you spells, Darkvision, and higher AC).
It doesn't matter if the players can buy and sell, or craft magic items in your game, the classes are designed in a context where magic items exist and there is a certain standard of distribution. You don't want any class reliant on specific acquired magic items to function effectively (the Artificer being an odd duck), but you also don't want a surprise magic item to throw the balance out of whack.
Sometimes managing that balance means controls on the items, sometimes it means controls on the class feature. I've never used it, but I imagine if a Sorcerer got a hold of a Mizzium Apparatus (Uncommon, Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica), it would be fairly busted because of the Sorcerer's Font of Magic. The answer here is to revise the magic item and you get the Hat of Wizardry and Hat of Many Spells. I can only guess at WotC's logic, but I suspect they are trying to head off potential abuse, warranted or not.
They should go back to the original Hexblade, built around light armor and no shield. If they want to keep accursed shield, make it while not using a shield. It might be interesting to see an updated Mettle class feature. (Evasion but for different saves. Back in the day, it was Reflex (DEX Save), Fortitude (CON maybe STR saves), and Will (everything else) and Mettle gave you Evasion for Fortitude and Will saves.) Is the current version, "when you fail a very specific save, you can choose to pass" effects?
Except the original Hexblade did not have medium armor or shield proficiency. It's fine for people on the internet to draw the conclusion that it was inspired by Elric. In my opinion, the Hexblade Patron is a combination of the original Hexblade concept and the Tome of Magic (3.5) Pact Magic (which originally included references to Kas and some the 5e Invocations). The fact that parallels exist does not mean that was the inspiration for the original class (It was 1-20 class back then). The Medium Armor proficiency was added in 4e, but was not part of the original concept.
The Hexblade in 5e (and its older 3.5e version) is very clearly inspired by Elric of Melniboné from Michael Moorcock’s novels.
Elric is:
A sorcerer-swordsman, both a skilled warrior and a wielder of arcane power.
Bound to Stormbringer, a sentient, cursed, soul-drinking black sword that grants him strength and magical might — but also manipulates and corrupts him.
Torn between being empowered by this weapon and being enslaved by it, which is exactly the bargain/curse dynamic that D&D’s Hexblade channels.
When 3.5e first introduced the Hexblade as a base class, designers even described it as a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon. That’s basically Elric in D&D form.
In 5e, when they reimagined the Hexblade as a Warlock Patron, they leaned further into:
Elric/Stormbringer archetype → a cursed/sentient weapon grants the pact magic.
Shadowfell/Raven Queen → added gothic dark-fantasy origins for those weapons.
Elric of Melniboné and Stormbringer are probably the single biggest inspirations for the Hexblade fantasy, even if D&D also mixes in broader cursed-weapon and shadow-magic tropes.
Yeah and no one is denying that. It does not mean however, that designers should be bound by those constraints to make the subclass be exactly Elric. They can poy hommage to the original inspiration but still do their own thing. It just needs to function for 5.5 and not suck.
ETA: Ah, this is my ignorance showing, then. I am unfamiliar with 3/3x/4.
No worries. It's only relevant as a history of the class design. It might still be Elric inspired, but I think there are other elements at play.
Still, regardless of that history, 2014 introduced a version of the Hexblade and to replace it with a completely different class and call it the same, is dishonest. It would be like if the 2024 ruleset updated Dwarves to be nimble arboreal creatures with an affinity for spellcasting.
When 3.5e first introduced the Hexblade as a base class, designers even described it as a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon. That’s basically Elric in D&D form.
I don't know where you go that from, but it wasn't Complete Warrior.
Complete Warrior had the Hexblade, Complete Arcane had the Warlock, and Tome of Magic had the really interesting Binder. All of these can be considered inspirations of the current Warlock and Hexblade.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th. I do think that accursed shield is awful.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
ETA: Ah, this is my ignorance showing, then. I am unfamiliar with 3/3x/4.
No worries. It's only relevant as a history of the class design. It might still be Elric inspired, but I think there are other elements at play.
Still, regardless of that history, 2014 introduced a version of the Hexblade and to replace it with a completely different class and call it the same, is dishonest. It would be like if the 2024 ruleset updated Dwarves to be nimble arboreal creatures with an affinity for spellcasting.
When 3.5e first introduced the Hexblade as a base class, designers even described it as a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon. That’s basically Elric in D&D form.
I don't know where you go that from, but it wasn't Complete Warrior.
Complete Warrior had the Hexblade, Complete Arcane had the Warlock, and Tome of Magic had the really interesting Binder. All of these can be considered inspirations of the current Warlock and Hexblade.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th. I do think that accursed shield is awful.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
While your proposed fix is interesting, interesting is not always good.
now this might just be my opinion, but from a melee oriented subclass, I want a static fix to my AC.The feature given to the genie paladin should have been given to the hexblade, allowing you to get AC from CHA. While some might think that would be too good because you are getting too much out of you primary stat, new warlocks have gone from being very SAD to probably the most MAD class in the game (bladelocks not EB warlocks). You still need CHA and CON mainly like you used too, but now you need DEX if you want decent AC since medium armor is not longer attached to hexblade and if you want to be carrying a greatsword you also need a 13 in STR even though you don't use it for anything.
Allowing hexblades to get AC from CHA (while unarmored/lightly armored and no shield) would do a couple of things, first it would deter multiclassing and reward pure hexblades, secondly, the most important, it would fix the AC problem without making you even more MAD and thirdly it would, IMO, be flavorful and interesting.
In my proposed fix, you would get the AC bonus while concentrating on a spell (something which warlocks want to do anyway, while not being completely risk free). It would not be directly tied to hexblades curse so you cans still have your defenses up if you run out of that feature (and even if you run out of spell slots thanks to blade ward) but still synergizes with hexblades curse (since you can apply it with hex and bestow curse which have concentration).
Thats just my take, wrong or right as it may be, the bottom line is, whatever they ens up doing, hexblades need access to good AC that is not dependent on a limited use feature or too easy to lose (like your guy running 10 feet away from you), either through some feature unique to hexblade, straight up medium armor prof, or a new invocation which fixes warlock AC (requiring PotB so that only bladelocks can take it).
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th.
The problem with this approach is that if the 2024 Hexblade wants to use a shield, they have to first take the Lightly Armored feat because that is the only armor-related feat that grants shield training. And what this means is that a 2024 Hexblade has to use their first two feats (4th and 8th level) to gain medium armor and shield training. Worse, it means effectively throwing away a feat because they already have Light Armor training (but not shield training).
Considering most campaigns end or fizzle out by or before 12th level, this means the 2024 Hexblade will, at most, get exactly one feat not dedicated to simply getting the armor and shield training the subclass had baked in with the 2014 version.
My own fix is that ALL armor-related feats bundle in shield training, but it's confounding to me that the folks in charge of the 2024 rules didn't do that as well.
ETA: Ah, this is my ignorance showing, then. I am unfamiliar with 3/3x/4.
No worries. It's only relevant as a history of the class design. It might still be Elric inspired, but I think there are other elements at play.
Still, regardless of that history, 2014 introduced a version of the Hexblade and to replace it with a completely different class and call it the same, is dishonest. It would be like if the 2024 ruleset updated Dwarves to be nimble arboreal creatures with an affinity for spellcasting.
When 3.5e first introduced the Hexblade as a base class, designers even described it as a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon. That’s basically Elric in D&D form.
I don't know where you go that from, but it wasn't Complete Warrior.
Complete Warrior had the Hexblade, Complete Arcane had the Warlock, and Tome of Magic had the really interesting Binder. All of these can be considered inspirations of the current Warlock and Hexblade.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th. I do think that accursed shield is awful.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
The Hexblade first appeared as a base class in Complete Warrior (D&D 3.5e, published 2003).
In Complete Warrior, p. 5 (Introduction), the Hexblade is listed as one of the new core base classes, described as:
“The hexblade combines the dynamic combat ability of a fighter with the arcane spellcasting of a sorcerer. Steeped in dark magic, hexblades use curses and combat prowess to bring down their foes.”
Then in the Hexblade Class description (Chapter 1, p. 5–11), it expands:
“A hexblade draws on arcane magic to curse enemies, grant him luck, and improve his combat abilities. Though he can cast a limited number of spells, his true power lies in his ability to place a baleful curse upon his foes.”
It’s not just my opinion, it’s written in the books. When you say “I don’t think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th” that’s not a valid argument. The point here is to discuss the design, not to suggest a patchwork fix. Why would anyone waste a feat when multiclassing into Fighter or Paladin offers a far stronger solution? That misses the point entirely.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th.
The problem with this approach is that if the 2024 Hexblade wants to use a shield, they have to first take the Lightly Armored feat because that is the only armor-related feat that grants shield training. And what this means is that a 2024 Hexblade has to use their first two feats (4th and 8th level) to gain medium armor and shield training. Worse, it means effectively throwing away a feat because they already have Light Armor training (but not shield training).
Considering most campaigns end or fizzle out by or before 12th level, this means the 2024 Hexblade will, at most, get exactly one feat not dedicated to simply getting the armor and shield training the subclass had baked in with the 2014 version.
My own fix is that ALL armor-related feats bundle in shield training, but it's confounding to me that the folks in charge of the 2024 rules didn't do that as well.
My own house rule is that Lightly Armored doesn't include Shield Proficiency and Moderately Armored does.
That said, I did take the official implementation into account and was okay with a shieldless Hexblade.
ETA: Ah, this is my ignorance showing, then. I am unfamiliar with 3/3x/4.
No worries. It's only relevant as a history of the class design. It might still be Elric inspired, but I think there are other elements at play.
Still, regardless of that history, 2014 introduced a version of the Hexblade and to replace it with a completely different class and call it the same, is dishonest. It would be like if the 2024 ruleset updated Dwarves to be nimble arboreal creatures with an affinity for spellcasting.
When 3.5e first introduced the Hexblade as a base class, designers even described it as a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon. That’s basically Elric in D&D form.
I don't know where you go that from, but it wasn't Complete Warrior.
Complete Warrior had the Hexblade, Complete Arcane had the Warlock, and Tome of Magic had the really interesting Binder. All of these can be considered inspirations of the current Warlock and Hexblade.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th. I do think that accursed shield is awful.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
The Hexblade first appeared as a base class in Complete Warrior (D&D 3.5e, published 2003).
In Complete Warrior, p. 5 (Introduction), the Hexblade is listed as one of the new core base classes, described as:
“The hexblade combines the dynamic combat ability of a fighter with the arcane spellcasting of a sorcerer. Steeped in dark magic, hexblades use curses and combat prowess to bring down their foes.”
Then in the Hexblade Class description (Chapter 1, p. 5–11), it expands:
“A hexblade draws on arcane magic to curse enemies, grant him luck, and improve his combat abilities. Though he can cast a limited number of spells, his true power lies in his ability to place a baleful curse upon his foes.”
It’s not just my opinion, it’s written in the books. When you say “I don’t think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th” that’s not a valid argument. The point here is to discuss the design, not to suggest a patchwork fix. Why would anyone waste a feat when multiclassing into Fighter or Paladin offers a far stronger solution? That misses the point entirely.
On this I agree completely. If I have to spend a feat just to get medium armor, I would rather push progression back by a level and multiclass. Fighter gets you CON saves, weapon masteries, a fighting style and all the armor Proficiencies you need and Paladin gives you 1st level spell slots to use on shield, some healing, weapon masteries and armor. Does it suck to have to wait 1 more level every time for your warlock features to come online? Yes, a lot, but it’s even worse to have to take your first feat just to get some AC. Again I still would prefer to get the genie paladin feature for the AC rather than medium armor training, because for me that feature is more interesting and opens up more build option as opposed to medium armor (which I always found boring tbh; if I can shape a weapon out of magic I should also be able to shape armor the same way).
But I digress, I think we all for the most part agree that accursed shield needs to be thrown in the void and be forgotten, and that hexblades need to good AC. We just dont agree on how they should get it, but thats ok because we all have a different power fantasy in mind for our hexblades ( and they could easily make everyone happy if they just fixed armor of shadows to be unarmored defense for warlocks like they had no trouble giving it to sorcerers)
Edit: Ill also say this, the thing that worries me the most is that I think that most of the feedback given was targeted at accursed shield and to some lesser extent Masterful Hex (i swear it feels like WoTc go out of their way to make warlock capstones trash), and not enough feedback was given on the rest of the subclass. Mainly Hexblades Curse which went from what the subclass used to be synonymous with, to a nothing feature. I fear they will slightly adjust accursed shield to scale slightly better and tweak some things and call it a day and I think the UA version needs a lot more work than minor tweaks.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th.
The problem with this approach is that if the 2024 Hexblade wants to use a shield, they have to first take the Lightly Armored feat because that is the only armor-related feat that grants shield training. And what this means is that a 2024 Hexblade has to use their first two feats (4th and 8th level) to gain medium armor and shield training. Worse, it means effectively throwing away a feat because they already have Light Armor training (but not shield training).
Considering most campaigns end or fizzle out by or before 12th level, this means the 2024 Hexblade will, at most, get exactly one feat not dedicated to simply getting the armor and shield training the subclass had baked in with the 2014 version.
My own fix is that ALL armor-related feats bundle in shield training, but it's confounding to me that the folks in charge of the 2024 rules didn't do that as well.
My own house rule is that Lightly Armored doesn't include Shield Proficiency and Moderately Armored does.
That said, I did take the official implementation into account and was okay with a shieldless Hexblade.
House rules cant be substitutes for good initial design. And while Im ok with shieldless hexblade, the subclass overall feels bland and weak, definitely weaker than any other warlock subclass with a 1 level dip in fighter and definitely not good or inspiring enough to make me want to move away from multiclassing for my bladelock.
ETA: Ah, this is my ignorance showing, then. I am unfamiliar with 3/3x/4.
No worries. It's only relevant as a history of the class design. It might still be Elric inspired, but I think there are other elements at play.
Still, regardless of that history, 2014 introduced a version of the Hexblade and to replace it with a completely different class and call it the same, is dishonest. It would be like if the 2024 ruleset updated Dwarves to be nimble arboreal creatures with an affinity for spellcasting.
When 3.5e first introduced the Hexblade as a base class, designers even described it as a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon. That’s basically Elric in D&D form.
I don't know where you go that from, but it wasn't Complete Warrior.
Complete Warrior had the Hexblade, Complete Arcane had the Warlock, and Tome of Magic had the really interesting Binder. All of these can be considered inspirations of the current Warlock and Hexblade.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th. I do think that accursed shield is awful.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
The Hexblade first appeared as a base class in Complete Warrior (D&D 3.5e, published 2003).
In Complete Warrior, p. 5 (Introduction), the Hexblade is listed as one of the new core base classes, described as:
“The hexblade combines the dynamic combat ability of a fighter with the arcane spellcasting of a sorcerer. Steeped in dark magic, hexblades use curses and combat prowess to bring down their foes.”
Then in the Hexblade Class description (Chapter 1, p. 5–11), it expands:
“A hexblade draws on arcane magic to curse enemies, grant him luck, and improve his combat abilities. Though he can cast a limited number of spells, his true power lies in his ability to place a baleful curse upon his foes.”
It’s not just my opinion, it’s written in the books. When you say “I don’t think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th” that’s not a valid argument. The point here is to discuss the design, not to suggest a patchwork fix. Why would anyone waste a feat when multiclassing into Fighter or Paladin offers a far stronger solution? That misses the point entirely.
ok i will bite because for a 3.0, 3.5 that was never a problem .... 1.) the 3.x ruleset had rules in it for PC's to create their own magic items it only needed time and roll of dice 2.) the 3.x ruleset didn't require you to attune a magic item, you could use as many magic items as you wanted, 10 magic items, no problem 3.) ok this is now a end lvl set :) + Bracers of Armor +8, Ring of Protection +5, Cloak of Protection +5, Defender Weapon +5 => no attunement AC : 10 +8 +5 +5 +5 = AC 33 and thats not even using any other items that add to AC which there are a lot
for the shield/med armor discussion to get them with feat that is 1.) clearly a feat tax 2.) or a MC tax
Hexblade in this presented UA form has no chance in melee, as he/she has no way to get out of melee without MC and taking 3-5 invoncation's to fix design flaws is not a fix ( not to mention each time you cast blade ward you loose 2 of your 3 attacks; for false life 3 of your 3 attacks). Since 5e it has always been if it goes down to fighting stuff needs to die fast, the longer it lives the higher the chances are of dying and that hasn't changed in the 2024 update. lowering your dps output to just survive is real bad design not only for yourself but for your group also.
and again everyone who is in favor of these changes in the UA is always adding in the +2 to AC from curse, remember you only get that if you are 10' of your cursed target and only !!!!!!! if you have used your curse on a target, if that target dies or you don't have any curses left to use no +2 to AC ( in that case you are sitting at AC 16 ( which will not improve ever, if you don't want to play a Warlock that doesn't use his magic for anything else but trying to survive the aggro he takes )
There are about 1% of encounters where the players only fight 1 opponent and if the hexblade played in UA style, the cursed mob will just disengage and run away while all the other mobs will take a liking on the hexblade
MC with 1 lvl paladin/ftr can fix this design flaw ... sure, but then you loose some of the ability's granted by this subclass. So why play this ruin of a subclass if you could instead play a subclass ( fiend, celestial for range; archfey for melee ) that has at least tools to survive in melee/range
ETA: Ah, this is my ignorance showing, then. I am unfamiliar with 3/3x/4.
No worries. It's only relevant as a history of the class design. It might still be Elric inspired, but I think there are other elements at play.
Still, regardless of that history, 2014 introduced a version of the Hexblade and to replace it with a completely different class and call it the same, is dishonest. It would be like if the 2024 ruleset updated Dwarves to be nimble arboreal creatures with an affinity for spellcasting.
When 3.5e first introduced the Hexblade as a base class, designers even described it as a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon. That’s basically Elric in D&D form.
I don't know where you go that from, but it wasn't Complete Warrior.
Complete Warrior had the Hexblade, Complete Arcane had the Warlock, and Tome of Magic had the really interesting Binder. All of these can be considered inspirations of the current Warlock and Hexblade.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th. I do think that accursed shield is awful.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
The Hexblade first appeared as a base class in Complete Warrior (D&D 3.5e, published 2003).
In Complete Warrior, p. 5 (Introduction), the Hexblade is listed as one of the new core base classes, described as:
“The hexblade combines the dynamic combat ability of a fighter with the arcane spellcasting of a sorcerer. Steeped in dark magic, hexblades use curses and combat prowess to bring down their foes.”
Then in the Hexblade Class description (Chapter 1, p. 5–11), it expands:
“A hexblade draws on arcane magic to curse enemies, grant him luck, and improve his combat abilities. Though he can cast a limited number of spells, his true power lies in his ability to place a baleful curse upon his foes.”
It’s not just my opinion, it’s written in the books. When you say “I don’t think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th” that’s not a valid argument. The point here is to discuss the design, not to suggest a patchwork fix. Why would anyone waste a feat when multiclassing into Fighter or Paladin offers a far stronger solution? That misses the point entirely.
ok i will bite because for a 3.0, 3.5 that was never a problem .... 1.) the 3.x ruleset had rules in it for PC's to create their own magic items it only needed time and roll of dice 2.) the 3.x ruleset didn't require you to attune a magic item, you could use as many magic items as you wanted, 10 magic items, no problem 3.) ok this is now a end lvl set :) + Bracers of Armor +8, Ring of Protection +5, Cloak of Protection +5, Defender Weapon +5 => no attunement AC : 10 +8 +5 +5 +5 = AC 33 and thats not even using any other items that add to AC which there are a lot
for the shield/med armor discussion to get them with feat that is 1.) clearly a feat tax 2.) or a MC tax
Hexblade in this presented UA form has no chance in melee, as he/she has no way to get out of melee without MC and taking 3-5 invoncation's to fix design flaws is not a fix ( not to mention each time you cast blade ward you loose 2 of your 3 attacks; for false life 3 of your 3 attacks). Since 5e it has always been if it goes down to fighting stuff needs to die fast, the longer it lives the higher the chances are of dying and that hasn't changed in the 2024 update. lowering your dps output to just survive is real bad design not only for yourself but for your group also.
and again everyone who is in favor of these changes in the UA is always adding in the +2 to AC from curse, remember you only get that if you are 10' of your cursed target and only !!!!!!! if you have used your curse on a target, if that target dies or you don't have any curses left to use no +2 to AC ( in that case you are sitting at AC 16 ( which will not improve ever, if you don't want to play a Warlock that doesn't use his magic for anything else but trying to survive the aggro he takes )
There are about 1% of encounters where the players only fight 1 opponent and if the hexblade played in UA style, the cursed mob will just disengage and run away while all the other mobs will take a liking on the hexblade
MC with 1 lvl paladin/ftr can fix this design flaw ... sure, but then you loose some of the ability's granted by this subclass. So why play this ruin of a subclass if you could instead play a subclass ( fiend, celestial for range; archfey for melee ) that has at least tools to survive in melee/range
Even the UA Undead has better surviving tools and I would hardly call that a flawless design.
House rules cant be substitutes for good initial design.
I never suggested such. I only think that attaching shield proficiency to Moderately Armored instead of Lightly Armored is more consistent with the rest of D&D proficiencies (no classes with light armor proficiency have shield proficiency. Every class with medium armor or heavy armor proficiency has shield proficiency, so it makes for a consistent progression. It was a tangential response to Xukuri's solution.
ok i will bite because for a 3.0, 3.5 that was never a problem .... 1.) the 3.x ruleset had rules in it for PC's to create their own magic items it only needed time and roll of dice 2.) the 3.x ruleset didn't require you to attune a magic item, you could use as many magic items as you wanted, 10 magic items, no problem 3.) ok this is now a end lvl set :) + Bracers of Armor +8, Ring of Protection +5, Cloak of Protection +5, Defender Weapon +5 => no attunement AC : 10 +8 +5 +5 +5 = AC 33 and thats not even using any other items that add to AC which there are a lot
Also keep in mind that in 3.x, you didn't have to choose between feats and attribute increases, both of which were tied to character level, not class level. 3.x had a limit to magic items, but it was per slot (with rings being limited to 2, unless you were a high level Artificer).
for the shield/med armor discussion to get them with feat that is 1.) clearly a feat tax 2.) or a MC tax
Yes, if you want to use medium armor on a class that doesn't provide Medium Armor proficiency, that is true, just like for any other class. This is different than a Hexblade's feature requiring you to be unarmored and without the subclass giving you an alternative for AC. Then, Accursed Shield either becomes useless or an invocation tax.
and again everyone who is in favor of these changes in the UA is always adding in the +2 to AC from curse, remember you only get that if you are 10' of your cursed target and only !!!!!!! if you have used your curse on a target, if that target dies or you don't have any curses left to use no +2 to AC ( in that case you are sitting at AC 16 ( which will not improve ever, if you don't want to play a Warlock that doesn't use his magic for anything else but trying to survive the aggro he takes )
I believe I have said that the Accursed Shield restrictions should be changed. The main thing I want to avoid is stacking it with a shield, whether the bonus is conditional or not. I think a character who is going to risk grapples needs to a decent STR or DEX save (Warlocks are not proficient in either so I recommend investment in DEX) or an alternative escape method. Most melee strikers will have high STR or DEX (using finesse weapons) and/or proficiency in the saves. A Hexblade may still want a high DEX to take advantage of Finesse Light Weapons for extra attacks (MC or Weapon Master feat will give 1+ weapon mastery for Nick or Vex, if desired). A Hexblade with a high DEX is very reasonable even before taking into account AC options. When you get to an 18 DEX, Medium versus Light Armor break even outside of a specific Magic Item or the Medium Armor Mastery feat.
When 3.5e first introduced the Hexblade as a base class, designers even described it as a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon. That’s basically Elric in D&D form.
I don't know where you go that from, but it wasn't Complete Warrior.
Complete Warrior had the Hexblade, Complete Arcane had the Warlock, and Tome of Magic had the really interesting Binder. All of these can be considered inspirations of the current Warlock and Hexblade.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th. I do think that accursed shield is awful.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
The Hexblade first appeared as a base class in Complete Warrior (D&D 3.5e, published 2003).
In Complete Warrior, p. 5 (Introduction), the Hexblade is listed as one of the new core base classes, described as:
“The hexblade combines the dynamic combat ability of a fighter with the arcane spellcasting of a sorcerer. Steeped in dark magic, hexblades use curses and combat prowess to bring down their foes.”
Then in the Hexblade Class description (Chapter 1, p. 5–11), it expands:
“A hexblade draws on arcane magic to curse enemies, grant him luck, and improve his combat abilities. Though he can cast a limited number of spells, his true power lies in his ability to place a baleful curse upon his foes.”
It’s not just my opinion, it’s written in the books.
None of that is "a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon." It's not written in the books. The hexblade, as written in the books, is a self-taught arcane caster who combines martial ability with curses. Their power is not from a mysterious curse, a pact, or a weapon, at least not in 3.5e. You omitted the section of the book that actually says what their source of power is.
When you say “I don’t think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th” that’s not a valid argument. The point here is to discuss the design, not to suggest a patchwork fix. Why would anyone waste a feat when multiclassing into Fighter or Paladin offers a far stronger solution? That misses the point entirely.
That's two statements. Let's break that apart. "I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency." That's a valid statement even if it doesn't include supporting justification. It is a statement regarding the design and not a patchwork fix. I am not saying the UA Hexblade is fine the way it is. I am saying that medium armor proficiency isn't necessary to fix it.
Next, "If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th." That's not a fix or design assessment. However, it's a reasonable path for players who do want to have their character wear medium armor, if the other issues are resolved.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
While your proposed fix is interesting, interesting is not always good.
now this might just be my opinion, but from a melee oriented subclass, I want a static fix to my AC.The feature given to the genie paladin should have been given to the hexblade, allowing you to get AC from CHA. While some might think that would be too good because you are getting too much out of you primary stat, new warlocks have gone from being very SAD to probably the most MAD class in the game (bladelocks not EB warlocks). You still need CHA and CON mainly like you used too, but now you need DEX if you want decent AC since medium armor is not longer attached to hexblade and if you want to be carrying a greatsword you also need a 13 in STR even though you don't use it for anything.
Allowing hexblades to get AC from CHA (while unarmored/lightly armored and no shield) would do a couple of things, first it would deter multiclassing and reward pure hexblades, secondly, the most important, it would fix the AC problem without making you even more MAD and thirdly it would, IMO, be flavorful and interesting.
In my proposed fix, you would get the AC bonus while concentrating on a spell (something which warlocks want to do anyway, while not being completely risk free). It would not be directly tied to hexblades curse so you cans still have your defenses up if you run out of that feature (and even if you run out of spell slots thanks to blade ward) but still synergizes with hexblades curse (since you can apply it with hex and bestow curse which have concentration).
Thats just my take, wrong or right as it may be, the bottom line is, whatever they ens up doing, hexblades need access to good AC that is not dependent on a limited use feature or too easy to lose (like your guy running 10 feet away from you), either through some feature unique to hexblade, straight up medium armor prof, or a new invocation which fixes warlock AC (requiring PotB so that only bladelocks can take it).
Yeah, we'll see what the final Genie Paladin looks like. I really don't want to see Hexblades getting the same feature as the Genie Paladin. If they want to lock you into the Mage Armor invocation, they should give it to your for free or give you an alternative (Maybe an exclusive option that scales).
You bring up a good point about strength though. Hexblades should have a subclass feature to use Charisma to meet the attribute requirements for Heavy Pact Weapons (or simply ignore it). However, with a +X Charisma AC bonus, Hexblade becomes an excellent 3 level dip for Paladins and Sorcerers. If you want to encourage single class Hex Blades, starting at +1 or +2 and improving at later levels would be better.
House rules cant be substitutes for good initial design.
I never suggested such. I only think that attaching shield proficiency to Moderately Armored instead of Lightly Armored is more consistent with the rest of D&D proficiencies (no classes with light armor proficiency have shield proficiency. Every class with medium armor or heavy armor proficiency has shield proficiency, so it makes for a consistent progression. It was a tangential response to Xukuri's solution.
ok i will bite because for a 3.0, 3.5 that was never a problem .... 1.) the 3.x ruleset had rules in it for PC's to create their own magic items it only needed time and roll of dice 2.) the 3.x ruleset didn't require you to attune a magic item, you could use as many magic items as you wanted, 10 magic items, no problem 3.) ok this is now a end lvl set :) + Bracers of Armor +8, Ring of Protection +5, Cloak of Protection +5, Defender Weapon +5 => no attunement AC : 10 +8 +5 +5 +5 = AC 33 and thats not even using any other items that add to AC which there are a lot
Also keep in mind that in 3.x, you didn't have to choose between feats and attribute increases, both of which were tied to character level, not class level. 3.x had a limit to magic items, but it was per slot (with rings being limited to 2, unless you were a high level Artificer).
for the shield/med armor discussion to get them with feat that is 1.) clearly a feat tax 2.) or a MC tax
Yes, if you want to use medium armor on a class that doesn't provide Medium Armor proficiency, that is true, just like for any other class. This is different than a Hexblade's feature requiring you to be unarmored and without the subclass giving you an alternative for AC. Then, Accursed Shield either becomes useless or an invocation tax.
and again everyone who is in favor of these changes in the UA is always adding in the +2 to AC from curse, remember you only get that if you are 10' of your cursed target and only !!!!!!! if you have used your curse on a target, if that target dies or you don't have any curses left to use no +2 to AC ( in that case you are sitting at AC 16 ( which will not improve ever, if you don't want to play a Warlock that doesn't use his magic for anything else but trying to survive the aggro he takes )
I believe I have said that the Accursed Shield restrictions should be changed. The main thing I want to avoid is stacking it with a shield, whether the bonus is conditional or not. I think a character who is going to risk grapples needs to a decent STR or DEX save (Warlocks are not proficient in either so I recommend investment in DEX) or an alternative escape method. Most melee strikers will have high STR or DEX (using finesse weapons) and/or proficiency in the saves. A Hexblade may still want a high DEX to take advantage of Finesse Light Weapons for extra attacks (MC or Weapon Master feat will give 1+ weapon mastery for Nick or Vex, if desired). A Hexblade with a high DEX is very reasonable even before taking into account AC options. When you get to an 18 DEX, Medium versus Light Armor break even outside of a specific Magic Item or the Medium Armor Mastery feat.
When 3.5e first introduced the Hexblade as a base class, designers even described it as a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon. That’s basically Elric in D&D form.
I don't know where you go that from, but it wasn't Complete Warrior.
Complete Warrior had the Hexblade, Complete Arcane had the Warlock, and Tome of Magic had the really interesting Binder. All of these can be considered inspirations of the current Warlock and Hexblade.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th. I do think that accursed shield is awful.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
The Hexblade first appeared as a base class in Complete Warrior (D&D 3.5e, published 2003).
In Complete Warrior, p. 5 (Introduction), the Hexblade is listed as one of the new core base classes, described as:
“The hexblade combines the dynamic combat ability of a fighter with the arcane spellcasting of a sorcerer. Steeped in dark magic, hexblades use curses and combat prowess to bring down their foes.”
Then in the Hexblade Class description (Chapter 1, p. 5–11), it expands:
“A hexblade draws on arcane magic to curse enemies, grant him luck, and improve his combat abilities. Though he can cast a limited number of spells, his true power lies in his ability to place a baleful curse upon his foes.”
It’s not just my opinion, it’s written in the books.
None of that is "a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon." It's not written in the books. The hexblade, as written in the books, is a self-taught arcane caster who combines martial ability with curses. Their power is not from a mysterious curse, a pact, or a weapon, at least not in 3.5e. You omitted the section of the book that actually says what their source of power is.
When you say “I don’t think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th” that’s not a valid argument. The point here is to discuss the design, not to suggest a patchwork fix. Why would anyone waste a feat when multiclassing into Fighter or Paladin offers a far stronger solution? That misses the point entirely.
That's two statements. Let's break that apart. "I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency." That's a valid statement even if it doesn't include supporting justification. It is a statement regarding the design and not a patchwork fix. I am not saying the UA Hexblade is fine the way it is. I am saying that medium armor proficiency isn't necessary to fix it.
Next, "If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th." That's not a fix or design assessment. However, it's a reasonable path for players who do want to have their character wear medium armor, if the other issues are resolved.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
While your proposed fix is interesting, interesting is not always good.
now this might just be my opinion, but from a melee oriented subclass, I want a static fix to my AC.The feature given to the genie paladin should have been given to the hexblade, allowing you to get AC from CHA. While some might think that would be too good because you are getting too much out of you primary stat, new warlocks have gone from being very SAD to probably the most MAD class in the game (bladelocks not EB warlocks). You still need CHA and CON mainly like you used too, but now you need DEX if you want decent AC since medium armor is not longer attached to hexblade and if you want to be carrying a greatsword you also need a 13 in STR even though you don't use it for anything.
Allowing hexblades to get AC from CHA (while unarmored/lightly armored and no shield) would do a couple of things, first it would deter multiclassing and reward pure hexblades, secondly, the most important, it would fix the AC problem without making you even more MAD and thirdly it would, IMO, be flavorful and interesting.
In my proposed fix, you would get the AC bonus while concentrating on a spell (something which warlocks want to do anyway, while not being completely risk free). It would not be directly tied to hexblades curse so you cans still have your defenses up if you run out of that feature (and even if you run out of spell slots thanks to blade ward) but still synergizes with hexblades curse (since you can apply it with hex and bestow curse which have concentration).
Thats just my take, wrong or right as it may be, the bottom line is, whatever they ens up doing, hexblades need access to good AC that is not dependent on a limited use feature or too easy to lose (like your guy running 10 feet away from you), either through some feature unique to hexblade, straight up medium armor prof, or a new invocation which fixes warlock AC (requiring PotB so that only bladelocks can take it).
Yeah, we'll see what the final Genie Paladin looks like. I really don't want to see Hexblades getting the same feature as the Genie Paladin. If they want to lock you into the Mage Armor invocation, they should give it to your for free or give you an alternative (Maybe an exclusive option that scales).
You bring up a good point about strength though. Hexblades should have a subclass feature to use Charisma to meet the attribute requirements for Heavy Pact Weapons (or simply ignore it). However, with a +X Charisma AC bonus, Hexblade becomes an excellent 3 level dip for Paladins and Sorcerers. If you want to encourage single class Hex Blades, starting at +1 or +2 and improving at later levels would be better.
A 3 level investment is no longer a dip, at what level would a paladin get those 3 levels? from 2-4 delaying extra attack until level 8? After level 5, so you get it at level 8 but you are delaying Auras and spell slot progression? IMO dipping for subclass features is no longer a thing since 3 levels are required. However, even so, I have said this multiple times and I cannot stress it enough, hampering a class feature due to multiclass possibilities is frankly stupid (on the designers part). If a feature interacts in a broken way due to multiclassing, then the DM has the right and the responsibility to not allow specific multiclass combination (cofeelock was banned at most tables in 5e due to how stupidly pact magic slots and the sorcerer spell slot conversion features worked).
Secondly, while the STR requirement is a pain the behind, I think it is ok for it to be a limitation, I will say IMO pact of the blade should ignore the heavy property of weapons you summon or bond to as a base feature (and I would homebrew it as such at my table), but if the PotB warlock wants GWM for the extra damage, than it is ok for the STR score to be a limitation you have to work around.
The genie paladin feature works with light armor as well as unarmored, so IMO that feature would be a great fix for warlocks, it does not force you into mage armor, but you can do so if you want, giving you options and build diversity.
While the hexblade does not specifically mention PotB, most of the time anyone is going to assume that the hexbalde has PotB. PotB does one, thing, it allows you to use CHA for your attacks, so investing into DEX instead of CHA is a pretty subpar option. When talking about the hexbaldes AC you must always assume that I are never going to have more than 14 DEX (16 at most and its still pushing it). Warlocks are going to put their points (after getting their 17 CHA) in CON, then in DEX (and 13 in STR if they plan on working towards GWM), that leaves you with 14 DEX, not a point more. Saying warlocks can invest 18 in DEX is not realistic and if they do, to improve their AC, then they are losing out on a lot more than they are gaining, spells become very limited because anything that requires a save becomes unusable and most core subclass features scale with CHA, both in potency and in number of uses. The medium armor prof hexbaldes had worked well because you stopped at 14 DEX and that worked perfectly with half-plate armor. Now, while I do agree with you that medium armor is not essential for hexbaldes fix their AC, however, then the AC fix needs to be independent of your DEX score. I've seen ppl arguing that accursed shield is good because it gets you 20 AC, these ppl assume a full investment in DEX which is not gonna happen (I know its not what you are saying). Realistically the current hexblade will be walking around with a 15 in AC (which taxes you an invocation slot on top of being bad), and a 17 while you are meeting the accursed shield conditions. 17 is not bad, if its always there, like the half-plate was, but is very bad when its highly conditional and limited in uses. Giving the hexblades AC which scales off their Charisma would be a flavorful and elegant fix, and its never gonna be as broken as most people might assume, because again, DEX is always gonna be low (and even if it is high is probably gonna come at the cost of the CHA score itself so it will always balance itself out). If people decide to heavily invest in both DEX and CHA (start 16 DEX and 17 CHA, by level 8 maximize CHA and at 12 get your DEX up to 18) your AC would be around 22 with mage armor or 21 with studded leather and while it looks high, its still not over the top considering that martials with full-plate and a shield get a 20 AC or 21 with defense and this is while they are only heavily investing in a single stat (STR), so the values a warlock AC that scales of off CHA will never be as absurd as people think when given to the subclass which wants to be specifically in melee.
A 3 level investment is no longer a dip, at what level would a paladin get those 3 levels? from 2-4 delaying extra attack until level 8? After level 5, so you get it at level 8 but you are delaying Auras and spell slot progression? IMO dipping for subclass features is no longer a thing since 3 levels are required.
A Paladin seeking to focus on Charisma may already be taking one level for Pact of the Blade. From there, a 3 level dip is just 2 more levels, which bring some cool perks in addition to anything Hexblade may bring.
If a feature interacts in a broken way due to multiclassing, then the DM has the right and the responsibility to not allow specific multiclass combination (cofeelock was banned at most tables in 5e due to how stupidly pact magic slots and the sorcerer spell slot conversion features worked).
Secondly, while the STR requirement is a pain the behind, I think it is ok for it to be a limitation, I will say IMO pact of the blade should ignore the heavy property of weapons you summon or bond to as a base feature (and I would homebrew it as such at my table), but if the PotB warlock wants GWM for the extra damage, than it is ok for the STR score to be a limitation you have to work around.
I was thinking in terms purely of the Heavy property. I wouldn't want them to qualify for feats off of their Charisma score.
The genie paladin feature works with light armor as well as unarmored, so IMO that feature would be a great fix for warlocks, it does not force you into mage armor, but you can do so if you want, giving you options and build diversity.
I didn't remember it correctly, I was thinking it worked with heavier armor. However, since it's a subclass, it cuts out other Paladins from accessing that feature. If you give that feature to another class's subclass, it is now accessible to other Paladin subclasses at the cost of the level 20 capstone.
While the hexblade does not specifically mention PotB, most of the time anyone is going to assume that the hexbalde has PotB. PotB does one, thing, it allows you to use CHA for your attacks, so investing into DEX instead of CHA is a pretty subpar option. When talking about the hexbaldes AC you must always assume that I are never going to have more than 14 DEX (16 at most and its still pushing it).
I feel like you're assuming a 14 DEX to justify medium armor. You have to choose your priorities and that affects your stat choices.
Now, while I do agree with you that medium armor is not essential for hexbaldes fix their AC, however, then the AC fix needs to be independent of your DEX score. I've seen ppl arguing that accursed shield is good because it gets you 20 AC, these ppl assume a full investment in DEX which is not gonna happen (I know its not what you are saying). Realistically the current hexblade will be walking around with a 15 in AC (which taxes you an invocation slot on top of being bad), and a 17 while you are meeting the accursed shield conditions. 17 is not bad, if its always there, like the half-plate was, but is very bad when its highly conditional and limited in uses.
That would be a pretty good place to be at, in my opinion. I like the concept of tying the AC bonus to curses or unluck, but not the implementation.
A 3 level investment is no longer a dip, at what level would a paladin get those 3 levels? from 2-4 delaying extra attack until level 8? After level 5, so you get it at level 8 but you are delaying Auras and spell slot progression? IMO dipping for subclass features is no longer a thing since 3 levels are required.
A Paladin seeking to focus on Charisma may already be taking one level for Pact of the Blade. From there, a 3 level dip is just 2 more levels, which bring some cool perks in addition to anything Hexblade may bring.
If a feature interacts in a broken way due to multiclassing, then the DM has the right and the responsibility to not allow specific multiclass combination (cofeelock was banned at most tables in 5e due to how stupidly pact magic slots and the sorcerer spell slot conversion features worked).
Secondly, while the STR requirement is a pain the behind, I think it is ok for it to be a limitation, I will say IMO pact of the blade should ignore the heavy property of weapons you summon or bond to as a base feature (and I would homebrew it as such at my table), but if the PotB warlock wants GWM for the extra damage, than it is ok for the STR score to be a limitation you have to work around.
I was thinking in terms purely of the Heavy property. I wouldn't want them to qualify for feats off of their Charisma score.
The genie paladin feature works with light armor as well as unarmored, so IMO that feature would be a great fix for warlocks, it does not force you into mage armor, but you can do so if you want, giving you options and build diversity.
I didn't remember it correctly, I was thinking it worked with heavier armor. However, since it's a subclass, it cuts out other Paladins from accessing that feature. If you give that feature to another class's subclass, it is now accessible to other Paladin subclasses at the cost of the level 20 capstone.
While the hexblade does not specifically mention PotB, most of the time anyone is going to assume that the hexbalde has PotB. PotB does one, thing, it allows you to use CHA for your attacks, so investing into DEX instead of CHA is a pretty subpar option. When talking about the hexbaldes AC you must always assume that I are never going to have more than 14 DEX (16 at most and its still pushing it).
I feel like you're assuming a 14 DEX to justify medium armor. You have to choose your priorities and that affects your stat choices.
Now, while I do agree with you that medium armor is not essential for hexbaldes fix their AC, however, then the AC fix needs to be independent of your DEX score. I've seen ppl arguing that accursed shield is good because it gets you 20 AC, these ppl assume a full investment in DEX which is not gonna happen (I know its not what you are saying). Realistically the current hexblade will be walking around with a 15 in AC (which taxes you an invocation slot on top of being bad), and a 17 while you are meeting the accursed shield conditions. 17 is not bad, if its always there, like the half-plate was, but is very bad when its highly conditional and limited in uses.
That would be a pretty good place to be at, in my opinion. I like the concept of tying the AC bonus to curses or unluck, but not the implementation.
I still think you do not comprehend how heavy a 3 level investment is. Again I ask you, at what level is the paladin getting those 3 levels in warlock? You may take 1 level for PotB at level 2 and that only pushes your features one level behind (like what bladelocks do when dipping for armor), but when are you going to take the 2nd and 3rd level. You are making '2 more levels'2 seem way easier then they actually are, and even if it was worth it for paladins to do so, which IMO it is not, I come back to my previous statement, hampering certain features due to multiclass reasons is absurd and a very stupid design limitation. You say warlocks should not get such a feature because then other paladins outside the genie subclass can get it from warlock. So let me understand this, paladins can get that feature on their subclass, but warlocks should be hamstrung from getting such a feature so that paladins cant get it by multiclassing into warlocks. That is beyond absurd. Its like saying you shouldn't buy nice things so that robbers cant steal them from you. Multiclass issues should be addressed by the DMs at the table.
I am assuming 14 DEX because that is the maximum you are gonna start with as any warlock. I have played around with point buy a lot and you are never going to start with more than 14 DEX. STR13, DEX14, CON14, INT8, WIS9, CHA17 (if you want to wield a heavy weapon and prepare for GWM), STR8, DEX14, CON16, INT8, WIS10, CHA17 (if you do not want GWM). These are the best stat lines you can start with as a warlock. Under no circumstance you are reducing your CON to increase your DEX just to get 1 more AC. The only other alternative is to start with a DEX15 (by dumping 3 stats; DEX15, CON16, CHA17 and 8 in the rest) and use an ASI at level 4 to get the DEX16 and CHA18. Sure you have 16 DEX now and your AC still sucks. Its a 15 in studded leather and a 16 in mage armor. Accursed shield still only gets you a 17/18 AC which never scales beyond that unless you keep investing in DEX which you will never do. DEX is such a heavy investment for warlocks that at that point multiclassing is still less of tax. Its not a choice of priorities at that point, is just hamstringing yourself, not for any increase in power, but just to exist in melee. anything beyond a 14 starting DEX is a hinderance for warlocks and not a choice, and I am not saying that to justify medium armor. If you read my previous comments I dont really want medium armor for hexblades, I would prefer an option which forces me into mage armor if it was worth it, but the AC provided needs to be easy to get and maintain, it can't be dependent on other limited features and must scale. A bonus to AC that scales with CHA while you are unarmored (or lightly armored) is the best way to do it and I have not seen any other suggestion anywhere which I would be happy with. People keep suggesting convoluted ways to boost a warlocks AC that are tied to hexblades curse, or tied to conditions which enemies can easily deactivate (be within 10 feet of an enemy), and all suffer similar issues. Bladelocks need and should have a good AC to frontline, and if they are afraid that blastlocks can benefit from it (like they used to do with the old hexblade) its the easiest thing to prevent in the world, make the other features work with weapons (melee weapons would be even better). STOP hamstringing the hexblade because of multiclassing and because of the existence of eldritch blast. If they are such an issue just put a designer comment in the subclass saying that the features do not work with EB if that's what needs to happen and regarding multiclassing, as I already said a 100 times, DMs have all the power to stop broken multiclass combinations or players trying to abuse dips.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah and no one is denying that. It does not mean however, that designers should be bound by those constraints to make the subclass be exactly Elric. They can poy hommage to the original inspiration but still do their own thing. It just needs to function for 5.5 and not suck.
No worries. It's only relevant as a history of the class design. It might still be Elric inspired, but I think there are other elements at play.
Still, regardless of that history, 2014 introduced a version of the Hexblade and to replace it with a completely different class and call it the same, is dishonest. It would be like if the 2024 ruleset updated Dwarves to be nimble arboreal creatures with an affinity for spellcasting.
I don't know where you go that from, but it wasn't Complete Warrior.
Complete Warrior had the Hexblade, Complete Arcane had the Warlock, and Tome of Magic had the really interesting Binder. All of these can be considered inspirations of the current Warlock and Hexblade.
In any case, back to the 2024 Hexblade. I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th. I do think that accursed shield is awful.
"While you aren't wielding a shield, when you hit the target cursed by your Hexblade's Curse with a melee attack, you can choose to impose disadvantage on attacks against you until the start of your next turn"? Seems too strong, but is it? Creates an anti-taunt effect, protects against sneak attack, and roughly translates to a +3.8 AC (which is what I am worried about). If you are wanting a striker role, rather than a defender, it is interesting. If you are wanting a defender role, it's not helpful unless you can combine it with some sort of battle field control. It also pushes the melee (Hex-Blade and Blade-adjacents).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
While your proposed fix is interesting, interesting is not always good.
now this might just be my opinion, but from a melee oriented subclass, I want a static fix to my AC.The feature given to the genie paladin should have been given to the hexblade, allowing you to get AC from CHA. While some might think that would be too good because you are getting too much out of you primary stat, new warlocks have gone from being very SAD to probably the most MAD class in the game (bladelocks not EB warlocks). You still need CHA and CON mainly like you used too, but now you need DEX if you want decent AC since medium armor is not longer attached to hexblade and if you want to be carrying a greatsword you also need a 13 in STR even though you don't use it for anything.
Allowing hexblades to get AC from CHA (while unarmored/lightly armored and no shield) would do a couple of things, first it would deter multiclassing and reward pure hexblades, secondly, the most important, it would fix the AC problem without making you even more MAD and thirdly it would, IMO, be flavorful and interesting.
In my proposed fix, you would get the AC bonus while concentrating on a spell (something which warlocks want to do anyway, while not being completely risk free). It would not be directly tied to hexblades curse so you cans still have your defenses up if you run out of that feature (and even if you run out of spell slots thanks to blade ward) but still synergizes with hexblades curse (since you can apply it with hex and bestow curse which have concentration).
Thats just my take, wrong or right as it may be, the bottom line is, whatever they ens up doing, hexblades need access to good AC that is not dependent on a limited use feature or too easy to lose (like your guy running 10 feet away from you), either through some feature unique to hexblade, straight up medium armor prof, or a new invocation which fixes warlock AC (requiring PotB so that only bladelocks can take it).
The problem with this approach is that if the 2024 Hexblade wants to use a shield, they have to first take the Lightly Armored feat because that is the only armor-related feat that grants shield training. And what this means is that a 2024 Hexblade has to use their first two feats (4th and 8th level) to gain medium armor and shield training. Worse, it means effectively throwing away a feat because they already have Light Armor training (but not shield training).
Considering most campaigns end or fizzle out by or before 12th level, this means the 2024 Hexblade will, at most, get exactly one feat not dedicated to simply getting the armor and shield training the subclass had baked in with the 2014 version.
My own fix is that ALL armor-related feats bundle in shield training, but it's confounding to me that the folks in charge of the 2024 rules didn't do that as well.
The Hexblade first appeared as a base class in Complete Warrior (D&D 3.5e, published 2003).
In Complete Warrior, p. 5 (Introduction), the Hexblade is listed as one of the new core base classes, described as:
Then in the Hexblade Class description (Chapter 1, p. 5–11), it expands:
It’s not just my opinion, it’s written in the books. When you say “I don’t think it needs medium armor proficiency. If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th” that’s not a valid argument. The point here is to discuss the design, not to suggest a patchwork fix. Why would anyone waste a feat when multiclassing into Fighter or Paladin offers a far stronger solution? That misses the point entirely.
My own house rule is that Lightly Armored doesn't include Shield Proficiency and Moderately Armored does.
That said, I did take the official implementation into account and was okay with a shieldless Hexblade.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
On this I agree completely. If I have to spend a feat just to get medium armor, I would rather push progression back by a level and multiclass. Fighter gets you CON saves, weapon masteries, a fighting style and all the armor Proficiencies you need and Paladin gives you 1st level spell slots to use on shield, some healing, weapon masteries and armor. Does it suck to have to wait 1 more level every time for your warlock features to come online? Yes, a lot, but it’s even worse to have to take your first feat just to get some AC. Again I still would prefer to get the genie paladin feature for the AC rather than medium armor training, because for me that feature is more interesting and opens up more build option as opposed to medium armor (which I always found boring tbh; if I can shape a weapon out of magic I should also be able to shape armor the same way).
But I digress, I think we all for the most part agree that accursed shield needs to be thrown in the void and be forgotten, and that hexblades need to good AC. We just dont agree on how they should get it, but thats ok because we all have a different power fantasy in mind for our hexblades ( and they could easily make everyone happy if they just fixed armor of shadows to be unarmored defense for warlocks like they had no trouble giving it to sorcerers)
Edit: Ill also say this, the thing that worries me the most is that I think that most of the feedback given was targeted at accursed shield and to some lesser extent Masterful Hex (i swear it feels like WoTc go out of their way to make warlock capstones trash), and not enough feedback was given on the rest of the subclass. Mainly Hexblades Curse which went from what the subclass used to be synonymous with, to a nothing feature. I fear they will slightly adjust accursed shield to scale slightly better and tweak some things and call it a day and I think the UA version needs a lot more work than minor tweaks.
House rules cant be substitutes for good initial design.
And while Im ok with shieldless hexblade, the subclass overall feels bland and weak, definitely weaker than any other warlock subclass with a 1 level dip in fighter and definitely not good or inspiring enough to make me want to move away from multiclassing for my bladelock.
ok i will bite because for a 3.0, 3.5 that was never a problem ....
1.) the 3.x ruleset had rules in it for PC's to create their own magic items it only needed time and roll of dice
2.) the 3.x ruleset didn't require you to attune a magic item, you could use as many magic items as you wanted, 10 magic items, no problem
3.) ok this is now a end lvl set :)
+ Bracers of Armor +8, Ring of Protection +5, Cloak of Protection +5, Defender Weapon +5 => no attunement
AC : 10 +8 +5 +5 +5 = AC 33 and thats not even using any other items that add to AC which there are a lot
for the shield/med armor discussion to get them with feat that is
1.) clearly a feat tax
2.) or a MC tax
Hexblade in this presented UA form has no chance in melee, as he/she has no way to get out of melee without MC
and taking 3-5 invoncation's to fix design flaws is not a fix ( not to mention each time you cast blade ward you loose 2 of your 3 attacks; for false life 3 of your 3 attacks). Since 5e it has always been if it goes down to fighting stuff needs to die fast, the longer it lives the higher the chances are of dying and that hasn't changed in the 2024 update. lowering your dps output to just survive is real bad design not only for yourself but for your group also.
and again everyone who is in favor of these changes in the UA is always adding in the +2 to AC from curse, remember you only get that if you are 10' of your cursed target and only !!!!!!! if you have used your curse on a target, if that target dies or you don't have any curses left to use no +2 to AC ( in that case you are sitting at AC 16 ( which will not improve ever, if you don't want to play a Warlock that doesn't use his magic for anything else but trying to survive the aggro he takes )
There are about 1% of encounters where the players only fight 1 opponent and if the hexblade played in UA style, the cursed mob will just disengage and run away while all the other mobs will take a liking on the hexblade
MC with 1 lvl paladin/ftr can fix this design flaw ... sure, but then you loose some of the ability's granted by this subclass. So why play this ruin of a subclass if you could instead play a subclass ( fiend, celestial for range; archfey for melee ) that has at least tools to survive in melee/range
Even the UA Undead has better surviving tools and I would hardly call that a flawless design.
I never suggested such. I only think that attaching shield proficiency to Moderately Armored instead of Lightly Armored is more consistent with the rest of D&D proficiencies (no classes with light armor proficiency have shield proficiency. Every class with medium armor or heavy armor proficiency has shield proficiency, so it makes for a consistent progression. It was a tangential response to Xukuri's solution.
Also keep in mind that in 3.x, you didn't have to choose between feats and attribute increases, both of which were tied to character level, not class level. 3.x had a limit to magic items, but it was per slot (with rings being limited to 2, unless you were a high level Artificer).
Yes, if you want to use medium armor on a class that doesn't provide Medium Armor proficiency, that is true, just like for any other class. This is different than a Hexblade's feature requiring you to be unarmored and without the subclass giving you an alternative for AC. Then, Accursed Shield either becomes useless or an invocation tax.
I believe I have said that the Accursed Shield restrictions should be changed. The main thing I want to avoid is stacking it with a shield, whether the bonus is conditional or not. I think a character who is going to risk grapples needs to a decent STR or DEX save (Warlocks are not proficient in either so I recommend investment in DEX) or an alternative escape method. Most melee strikers will have high STR or DEX (using finesse weapons) and/or proficiency in the saves. A Hexblade may still want a high DEX to take advantage of Finesse Light Weapons for extra attacks (MC or Weapon Master feat will give 1+ weapon mastery for Nick or Vex, if desired). A Hexblade with a high DEX is very reasonable even before taking into account AC options. When you get to an 18 DEX, Medium versus Light Armor break even outside of a specific Magic Item or the Medium Armor Mastery feat.
None of that is "a dark, arcane warrior whose powers stem from a mysterious curse or weapon." It's not written in the books. The hexblade, as written in the books, is a self-taught arcane caster who combines martial ability with curses. Their power is not from a mysterious curse, a pact, or a weapon, at least not in 3.5e. You omitted the section of the book that actually says what their source of power is.
That's two statements. Let's break that apart. "I don't think it needs medium armor proficiency." That's a valid statement even if it doesn't include supporting justification. It is a statement regarding the design and not a patchwork fix. I am not saying the UA Hexblade is fine the way it is. I am saying that medium armor proficiency isn't necessary to fix it.
Next, "If a character wants to wear medium armor, take a feat at 4th." That's not a fix or design assessment. However, it's a reasonable path for players who do want to have their character wear medium armor, if the other issues are resolved.
Yeah, we'll see what the final Genie Paladin looks like. I really don't want to see Hexblades getting the same feature as the Genie Paladin. If they want to lock you into the Mage Armor invocation, they should give it to your for free or give you an alternative (Maybe an exclusive option that scales).
You bring up a good point about strength though. Hexblades should have a subclass feature to use Charisma to meet the attribute requirements for Heavy Pact Weapons (or simply ignore it). However, with a +X Charisma AC bonus, Hexblade becomes an excellent 3 level dip for Paladins and Sorcerers. If you want to encourage single class Hex Blades, starting at +1 or +2 and improving at later levels would be better.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
A 3 level investment is no longer a dip, at what level would a paladin get those 3 levels? from 2-4 delaying extra attack until level 8? After level 5, so you get it at level 8 but you are delaying Auras and spell slot progression? IMO dipping for subclass features is no longer a thing since 3 levels are required. However, even so, I have said this multiple times and I cannot stress it enough, hampering a class feature due to multiclass possibilities is frankly stupid (on the designers part). If a feature interacts in a broken way due to multiclassing, then the DM has the right and the responsibility to not allow specific multiclass combination (cofeelock was banned at most tables in 5e due to how stupidly pact magic slots and the sorcerer spell slot conversion features worked).
Secondly, while the STR requirement is a pain the behind, I think it is ok for it to be a limitation, I will say IMO pact of the blade should ignore the heavy property of weapons you summon or bond to as a base feature (and I would homebrew it as such at my table), but if the PotB warlock wants GWM for the extra damage, than it is ok for the STR score to be a limitation you have to work around.
The genie paladin feature works with light armor as well as unarmored, so IMO that feature would be a great fix for warlocks, it does not force you into mage armor, but you can do so if you want, giving you options and build diversity.
While the hexblade does not specifically mention PotB, most of the time anyone is going to assume that the hexbalde has PotB. PotB does one, thing, it allows you to use CHA for your attacks, so investing into DEX instead of CHA is a pretty subpar option. When talking about the hexbaldes AC you must always assume that I are never going to have more than 14 DEX (16 at most and its still pushing it). Warlocks are going to put their points (after getting their 17 CHA) in CON, then in DEX (and 13 in STR if they plan on working towards GWM), that leaves you with 14 DEX, not a point more. Saying warlocks can invest 18 in DEX is not realistic and if they do, to improve their AC, then they are losing out on a lot more than they are gaining, spells become very limited because anything that requires a save becomes unusable and most core subclass features scale with CHA, both in potency and in number of uses. The medium armor prof hexbaldes had worked well because you stopped at 14 DEX and that worked perfectly with half-plate armor. Now, while I do agree with you that medium armor is not essential for hexbaldes fix their AC, however, then the AC fix needs to be independent of your DEX score. I've seen ppl arguing that accursed shield is good because it gets you 20 AC, these ppl assume a full investment in DEX which is not gonna happen (I know its not what you are saying). Realistically the current hexblade will be walking around with a 15 in AC (which taxes you an invocation slot on top of being bad), and a 17 while you are meeting the accursed shield conditions. 17 is not bad, if its always there, like the half-plate was, but is very bad when its highly conditional and limited in uses. Giving the hexblades AC which scales off their Charisma would be a flavorful and elegant fix, and its never gonna be as broken as most people might assume, because again, DEX is always gonna be low (and even if it is high is probably gonna come at the cost of the CHA score itself so it will always balance itself out). If people decide to heavily invest in both DEX and CHA (start 16 DEX and 17 CHA, by level 8 maximize CHA and at 12 get your DEX up to 18) your AC would be around 22 with mage armor or 21 with studded leather and while it looks high, its still not over the top considering that martials with full-plate and a shield get a 20 AC or 21 with defense and this is while they are only heavily investing in a single stat (STR), so the values a warlock AC that scales of off CHA will never be as absurd as people think when given to the subclass which wants to be specifically in melee.
A Paladin seeking to focus on Charisma may already be taking one level for Pact of the Blade. From there, a 3 level dip is just 2 more levels, which bring some cool perks in addition to anything Hexblade may bring.
I was thinking in terms purely of the Heavy property. I wouldn't want them to qualify for feats off of their Charisma score.
I didn't remember it correctly, I was thinking it worked with heavier armor. However, since it's a subclass, it cuts out other Paladins from accessing that feature. If you give that feature to another class's subclass, it is now accessible to other Paladin subclasses at the cost of the level 20 capstone.
I feel like you're assuming a 14 DEX to justify medium armor. You have to choose your priorities and that affects your stat choices.
That would be a pretty good place to be at, in my opinion. I like the concept of tying the AC bonus to curses or unluck, but not the implementation.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I still think you do not comprehend how heavy a 3 level investment is. Again I ask you, at what level is the paladin getting those 3 levels in warlock? You may take 1 level for PotB at level 2 and that only pushes your features one level behind (like what bladelocks do when dipping for armor), but when are you going to take the 2nd and 3rd level. You are making '2 more levels'2 seem way easier then they actually are, and even if it was worth it for paladins to do so, which IMO it is not, I come back to my previous statement, hampering certain features due to multiclass reasons is absurd and a very stupid design limitation. You say warlocks should not get such a feature because then other paladins outside the genie subclass can get it from warlock. So let me understand this, paladins can get that feature on their subclass, but warlocks should be hamstrung from getting such a feature so that paladins cant get it by multiclassing into warlocks. That is beyond absurd. Its like saying you shouldn't buy nice things so that robbers cant steal them from you. Multiclass issues should be addressed by the DMs at the table.
I am assuming 14 DEX because that is the maximum you are gonna start with as any warlock. I have played around with point buy a lot and you are never going to start with more than 14 DEX. STR13, DEX14, CON14, INT8, WIS9, CHA17 (if you want to wield a heavy weapon and prepare for GWM), STR8, DEX14, CON16, INT8, WIS10, CHA17 (if you do not want GWM). These are the best stat lines you can start with as a warlock. Under no circumstance you are reducing your CON to increase your DEX just to get 1 more AC. The only other alternative is to start with a DEX15 (by dumping 3 stats; DEX15, CON16, CHA17 and 8 in the rest) and use an ASI at level 4 to get the DEX16 and CHA18. Sure you have 16 DEX now and your AC still sucks. Its a 15 in studded leather and a 16 in mage armor. Accursed shield still only gets you a 17/18 AC which never scales beyond that unless you keep investing in DEX which you will never do. DEX is such a heavy investment for warlocks that at that point multiclassing is still less of tax. Its not a choice of priorities at that point, is just hamstringing yourself, not for any increase in power, but just to exist in melee. anything beyond a 14 starting DEX is a hinderance for warlocks and not a choice, and I am not saying that to justify medium armor. If you read my previous comments I dont really want medium armor for hexblades, I would prefer an option which forces me into mage armor if it was worth it, but the AC provided needs to be easy to get and maintain, it can't be dependent on other limited features and must scale. A bonus to AC that scales with CHA while you are unarmored (or lightly armored) is the best way to do it and I have not seen any other suggestion anywhere which I would be happy with. People keep suggesting convoluted ways to boost a warlocks AC that are tied to hexblades curse, or tied to conditions which enemies can easily deactivate (be within 10 feet of an enemy), and all suffer similar issues. Bladelocks need and should have a good AC to frontline, and if they are afraid that blastlocks can benefit from it (like they used to do with the old hexblade) its the easiest thing to prevent in the world, make the other features work with weapons (melee weapons would be even better). STOP hamstringing the hexblade because of multiclassing and because of the existence of eldritch blast. If they are such an issue just put a designer comment in the subclass saying that the features do not work with EB if that's what needs to happen and regarding multiclassing, as I already said a 100 times, DMs have all the power to stop broken multiclass combinations or players trying to abuse dips.