Hexblade warlock is powerful for the wrong reasons and warlock

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Im running a campaign that just hit 20th and the PCs have averaged around 6 encounters and around 2 short rests each long rest over that time. Sometimes more and sometimes less.

We have a Tome Feylock 18, a Lore Bard 18, a Paladin 6/ Cleric 14, a Swashbuckler 15/ Battlemaster 5 and a Paladin 2/ Moon Druid 17.

A pretty good mix of long rest and short rest classes, and they all have a niche and balance out just fine.

Just because your table doesnt do it, doesnt mean that this applies to other tables.

Um, just because it works for you, it doesn't mean that this applies to other tables.

In fact, THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S ENTIRE POST IS ABOUT THE ISSUES HE HAS NOTICED AT HIS TABLE. You decided to declare his table and GM broken. But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.

If the kinds of story that prevails at the OPs table work for that group, then your advice about changing the pace of encounters to fit the DMG's shortrest:longrest is WORTH AVOIDING. Better, I think, to tweak rules as necessary, if necessary, to suit the style of play. Fortunately, this is easy to do.

So, congratulations. The warlock rules work well for you as written. But the OP is far from alone in believing that warlocks come best in small dips.

Anyway,

Ken

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

If you want to change it you can, but then you need to deal with the consequences.

Sure. Fortunately, the change I suggested (and which various other people online have either adapted or arrived at independently; one warlock guide on enworld suggests something similar, for example) makes sure that everything works as expected.

You can say that 5e is not well designed, and it might not be your thing, but millions of people enjoy the design just fine.

I can say that. But, alas, I don't think I said anything about D&D5 as a whole, only this feature of D&D5, which, as I mentioned in the very same post, is easily tweaked if desired. Certainly it beats telling a GM to change how he paces adventures.

*grin* Maybe we'll see some OotS characters argue about whether a break is a short or a long rest...

Anyway,

Ken

[RSP]

Hi,



Um, just because it works for you, it doesn't mean that this applies to other tables.

In fact, THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S ENTIRE POST IS ABOUT THE ISSUES HE HAS NOTICED AT HIS TABLE. You decided to declare his table and GM broken. But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.

If the kinds of story that prevails at the OPs table work for that group, then your advice about changing the pace of encounters to fit the DMG's shortrest:longrest is WORTH AVOIDING. Better, I think, to tweak rules as necessary, if necessary, to suit the style of play. Fortunately, this is easy to do.

So, congratulations. The warlock rules work well for you as written. But the OP is far from alone in believing that warlocks come best in small dips.

Anyway,

Ken

The Warlock rules work fine for the game as written. The issue is, the OP (and others who don't like the features of the Warlock) don't want to play a Warlock; the OP said as much in his post after my last: his table transferred from 4e to 5e mid campaign and he doesn't like the 5e Warlock. Cool, not everyone has to like every class.

Warlock (like most classes) can be a worthwhile dip for some characters. It seems everyone who complains about the design of Warlocks really wants them to be just like other casters, when the entire point of them is to not be like other casters.

Those arguments sound just like the people who complain they want a gish who casts as well as a Wizard and melees as well as a fighter.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

If that is what you prefer (and it's totally okay to prefer whatever you want) then play a class that gives you this. Don't play a warlock and complain that it doesn't give you this! You play a warlock when you want to play a class that gives what what the warlock gives.

Did I say I was playing a warlock? Did I complain about my game experience? There are a bunch of people talking about the Warlock casting mechanic being every bit as good as the usual, and in many ways, it certainly is not, even with 2 short rests (usually at the GM's discretion) per long rest (also usually at the GM's discretion.)

FWIW, I did suggest that maybe all the other stuff that a warlock gets might compensate for a casting mechanic (and also spell list, but that's not at issue in this thread and not something I mentioned until now) that is not as good as that casters who do not get these other warlock goodies.

Converting all spell slots into damage spells is, in my opinion, a really bad way to compare spell slots utilization. For one thing, as has been covered elsewhere (such as some very good Wizard guides), casters *can* inflict damage, but can often do much better things. In a way, this is especially true for Warlocks, who already have great at-will damage. For another, as has been covered similarly, spells are usually not great at damage.

The original poster raised a complaint. Telling people "don't play a warlock" or "your GM sucks" is less than helpful.

You're buying a bike and complaining that it's not as good at being a truck as an actual truck is! If you want something that would make a good truck, buy a truck! Don't complain that bikes are badly designed trucks, when bikes are actually well-designed bikes made for people who want the kind of advantages that bikes offer!

Well, I'm not buying a bike. I didn't mention bikes. Nor did I complain about bikes. I don't know what bikes or trucks have to do with warlocks.

I *would* say (and have said elsewhere online) that a player who wants to play a real full-caster should not play a Warlock. Warlocks have their own kind of goodness, but their spellcasting, on its own, is not quite that of a more ordinary full-caster.

Maybe you are trying to say something similar? If so, we are kind of agreeing. But only kind of: The OP is far from the first to notice how wonderful a dip in Warlock can be, or notice that various other classes offer more incentive to stay the distance levels 1 through 20.

Anyway,

Ken

[Malifice]

I see the difference (I even highlighted it), but I don't see how it's relevant. My original post made no claims whatsoever about balance. My only claim was offering JC's quote to rebut the notion that 6-8 encounters per day was recommended in the DMG.

And again, you need to take that comment into context.

In this thread for example we are not talking about combat encounters (where the expectation is that PCs hit them at full strength; so the 6-8/2-3 guideline isnt relevant); we are talking about class balance (where the 6-8/ 2-3 short rest reccomendation is relevant).

But yes, I agree with you the DMG doesnt mandate a 6-8 encounter/ 2-3 short rest adventuring day [between long rests]. Ive never said it does.

Many adventuring days in the group I have been DMing for 3 years have fewer than 6 encounters [and some have the occasional single encounter], s0me days feature the occasional longer 8+ encounter day, the occasional day with a single or no short rests, and the occasional day with more than 3 short rests.

Its not mandated at all by the book for combats to have that many rests/ encounters. Its the books guideline for class balance though, so it's useful to use that guideline as a baseline for encounter and adventure design.

Straying from it to far, and too often, will throw class balance out the window.

[Davrix]

The Warlock rules work fine for the game as written. The issue is, the OP (and others who don't like the features of the Warlock) don't want to play a Warlock; the OP said as much in his post after my last: his table transferred from 4e to 5e mid campaign and he doesn't like the 5e Warlock. Cool, not everyone has to like every class.

Warlock (like most classes) can be a worthwhile dip for some characters. It seems everyone who complains about the design of Warlocks really wants them to be just like other casters, when the entire point of them is to not be like other casters.

Those arguments sound just like the people who complain they want a gish who casts as well as a Wizard and melees as well as a fighter.

I actually like the design of the warlock and I feel it does a pretty good job if your the sit back and blast them type of caster. I just feel like it falls apart with the hexblade sub-class when your trying to be more close quarters combat. Sure you can get some impressive damn nova out of it. But it has no sustain and the two biggest spells you want to use most often like Shield and Darkness gain no benefit from up-casting. The basic point I was trying to make is that you are better served by not staying pure warlock if you want to be up close and personal. A paladin x / hexblade 3 is going to work / preform better and longer than a pure version of the class. And I just feel like that's a fail of its design. Granted this fact is just made worse because of my tables style of play which is probably largely influenced by 4th ed.

Oh and our solution has been I'm allowed to convert one spell slot per short rest into 7 spell points that carry over until a long rest. Going to give it a try next week when we play.

[Malifice]

Um, just because it works for you, it doesn't mean that this applies to other tables.

Exactly. That was my actual point. The post I was quoting was suggesting that it's impossible [or rare] to run a campaign featuring a multi-encounter, multi short rest adventuring day as a median.

My point was thats not true. Ive managed it for 3 years now in a campaign running to 20th+.

In fact, THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S ENTIRE POST IS ABOUT THE ISSUES HE HAS NOTICED AT HIS TABLE.
You decided to declare his table and GM broken.

No, I didnt say broken. I said If his table is experiencing problems with the ''5 minute work day'' or the rest mechanic being abused or ignored, then thats the DMs fault. If his table are happy with the 5MWD, then good for them.

But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.

I partly agree. The 5E resource/ rest mechanic is problematic. I partly wish that they removed all short rest/ long rest recharge of abilities, and instead went with all abilities being 'per encounter' insted. That way class balance isnt about ensuring a median target of around half a dozen encounters per long rest, and a short rest every 2 or so encounters over the span of all your adventuring days. Instead class balane would be adventuring day neutral so to speak (classes remain balanced if you have 1 enounter or 20).

Of course the counter argument is that they kind of tried that last edition, and it went down like a lead balloon.

The other counter argument is that the rest variance gives DMs more flexibility in adjusting class balance on the fly. Got a Warlock that is being overshadowed by the party Wizard? Simply dial in more short rests (either by a doom clock pushin the PCs through several encounters in a single day, or by imposing the gritty realism variant for resting, or by reducing the time it takes to short rest to 5 minutes or whatever).

In 5E you (as DM) have your hands on the rest 'dials'. You can manipulate them at will to play around with class balance as desired, without touching a single class feature or anything else.

Thats a pretty neat feature.

If the kinds of story that prevails at the OPs table work for that group, then your advice about changing the pace of encounters to fit the DMG's shortrest:longrest is WORTH AVOIDING.

Oh shush.

Im not saying anything about the 'story' that prevails at the OPs table. There is zero (and I mean zero) equivalence between his tables 'story' and the rules for resting.

Is there any reason why the DM in the OPs group cant use a rule that reduces short rests to 5 minutes (or even makes them automatic after each encounter)? Or why the OPs DM cant implement the Gritty Rest variant from the DMG (which perfectly suits a campaign pacing of 0-3 encounters per day + heavy RP of the OPs campaign?).

I assure you the reason the OP is having his problems is becuase his DM is naive to the rest/ resource paradigm and how it works to ensure class balance. I doubt the OPs DM is only (or intentionally) running a game featuring zero short rests between long rests out of any 'story reasons' (unless the 'story' is one where Warlocks, Monks and Fighters are intended to suck).

Please, explain to me why the OPs DM cant do something in this case? Such as simply impose gritty rest variant for long rests [make them 1 week long] and/or bring short rests down to 5 minutes?

Those rules are in the DMG remember.

[Malifice]

A paladin x / hexblade 3 is going to work / preform better and longer than a pure version of the class.

In general, no it's not.

Over shorter (single encounter adventuring days) it probably will. Over standard (or longer) adventuring days, it most certainly will not.

Seeing as your DM doesnt police the Adventuring day at all, then I would avoid Short rest based classes (Warlock, Monk, Fighter) like the plague (barring a small dip for increased Nova potential).

Paladins, Sorcerers (and other fullcasters), Barbarians are the way to go. When combat starts simply spam the highest level crap you can (spells, rage, smites, everything) and nova like mad.

I wouldnt play in such a game personally. Nova games are boring rocket tag with no real decision points in actual play beyond 'mash the buttons'. But each to their own.

[ad_hoc]

But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.

There probably isn't anything wrong with the game, the table is probably just playing the wrong game.

I don't like 4e so I don't play 4e. I don't think 4e is broken just because its design is counter to what I find fun.

[Daithi]

Since the OP says he is doing a lot role playing at his table then another option is to pick Invocations that help you in the role playing situations. For example, Mask of Many Faces, Eldritch Sight, Beguiling Influence, etc.

I actually like Mask of Many Faces as a Hexblade a lot. You get to play Arya Stark.

The XGtE also has several summoning spells to give warlocks in general another cool way to go.

Personally, the warlock is one of my favorite classes because there are so many ways to go with it --- hexblade, summoner, EB blaster, and EB long range sniper, ritual spell concentration, cool familiar...

[RSP]

I actually like the design of the warlock and I feel it does a pretty good job if your the sit back and blast them type of caster. I just feel like it falls apart with the hexblade sub-class when your trying to be more close quarters combat. Sure you can get some impressive damn nova out of it. But it has no sustain and the two biggest spells you want to use most often like Shield and Darkness gain no benefit from up-casting. The basic point I was trying to make is that you are better served by not staying pure warlock if you want to be up close and personal. A paladin x / hexblade 3 is going to work / preform better and longer than a pure version of the class. And I just feel like that's a fail of its design. Granted this fact is just made worse because of my tables style of play which is probably largely influenced by 4th ed.

Oh and our solution has been I'm allowed to convert one spell slot per short rest into 7 spell points that carry over until a long rest. Going to give it a try next week when we play.

I actually think MC-ing in general is preferable to single class characters as it provides a lot more options. Story-wise, I find very few characters that fit the mold of a single class ("all I've ever done is sell my soul to a fiend" vs "I was always a fighter until the day I chose power over my freedom"). Likewise, having options when you level beyond ASIs/Feats allows one to craft the character in how they want it to play.

I don't think that means the Warlock isn't a good single class, just because having options are good. Really, the Wizard and Pally are the only classes that don't benefit mechanically from MCing, and even they have some good choices for certain builds.

And a Hexblade can work fine too. Using your slots on AoA is probably a better use that Shield, though. Shield is a horrible use of a higher level slot; using that as a basis for Warlocks being bad is a poor argument.

[Pex]

It might help some players if they stop thinking of the warlock as a spellcaster and think of it as a warrior. Eldritch Blasting is being an archer. Hexblade/Blade Pact is being a melee warrior. You can be both. It's in between the more fighting focused Eldritch Knight Fighter and more spellcasting focused Valor Bard. It won't solve the problem of short rest issues if that's an issue in your game, but it could help your personal feel of the class. With your mindset focuses on being a warrior instead of a spellcaster, it's easier to get behind the idea of the magic of the class enhancing the warrior aspect instead of being the point of the class.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Exactly. That was my actual point. The post I was quoting was suggesting that it's impossible [or rare] to run a campaign featuring a multi-encounter, multi short rest adventuring day as a median.

My point was thats not true. Ive managed it for 3 years now in a campaign running to 20th+.

But many people have had issues. This is far from the first thread with complaints along these lines. A game subsystem that is difficult to manage, especially in a game intended for non-experts, is problematic, by my way of thinking.

No, I didnt say broken. I said If his table is experiencing problems with the ''5 minute work day'' or the rest mechanic being abused or ignored, then thats the DMs fault. If his table are happy with the 5MWD, then good for them.

Given the paragraph above, I feel rather comfortable with my characterization: You're blaming the GM and the table for doing things you think are wrong.

I partly agree. The 5E resource/ rest mechanic is problematic. I partly wish that they removed all short rest/ long rest recharge of abilities, and instead went with all abilities being 'per encounter' insted. That way class balance isnt about ensuring a median target of around half a dozen encounters per long rest, and a short rest every 2 or so encounters over the span of all your adventuring days. Instead class balane would be adventuring day neutral so to speak (classes remain balanced if you have 1 enounter or 20).

Of course the counter argument is that they kind of tried that last edition, and it went down like a lead balloon.

Hmm. I think that the main issues besetting D&D4 were different, mostly about the game not feeling at all like D&D.

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean:

I think that the encounter vs daily paradigm of D&D4 is superior to the short vs long rest paradigm of D&D5. It is easier to understand, easier for any group to do "correctly" and easily translates to "movie realism" in which characters are recharged between scenes.

But D&D4 was not at all adventuring day neutral. Some classes had great dailies at the expense of other powers. Other classes had great at-wills at the expense of other powers. Etc. And there were a few classes that were far superior to all the others, mocking any notion of balancing anything.

The other counter argument is that the rest variance gives DMs more flexibility in adjusting class balance on the fly. Got a Warlock that is being overshadowed by the party Wizard? Simply dial in more short rests (either by a doom clock pushin the PCs through several encounters in a single day, or by imposing the gritty realism variant for resting, or by reducing the time it takes to short rest to 5 minutes or whatever).

In 5E you (as DM) have your hands on the rest 'dials'. You can manipulate them at will to play around with class balance as desired, without touching a single class feature or anything else.

Thats a pretty neat feature.

It is, for GMs who would want to use them, and able to use them while doing everything else. Some folks prefer a subsystem that just works, and some folks don't like the kind of metagaming that you suggest. Heck, it's easier and no less legitimate to just have the monsters all attack the wizard who is doing too well.

Oh shush.

Im not saying anything about the 'story' that prevails at the OPs table. There is zero (and I mean zero) equivalence between his tables 'story' and the rules for resting.

Yes, there is.

By defining a refresh of powers as a rest, D&D5 ties the refresh to the story, which must now accomodate time for a rest. Story events and pacing must change to allow rests here but not there, or to perhaps impose consequences for some rests.

This can be made to work, as you have done, but adds a degree of difficulty to maintaining both story integrity and game balance.

I think that some simpler mechanic, such as encounter/scene vs day/chapter as you suggest, or such as the variant I suggest, or even the variant in 13th Age (your variant, but there are always 4 encounters per day) is simpler. Your version also provides the benefit you wanted, of letting the GM control the number of encounters/refreshes per day. (My version posted to this thread provides the benefit of giving the *players* more control. A difference of philosophy at work?)

Is there any reason why the DM in the OPs group cant use a rule that reduces short rests to 5 minutes (or even makes them automatic after each encounter)? Or why the OPs DM cant implement the Gritty Rest variant from the DMG (which perfectly suits a campaign pacing of 0-3 encounters per day + heavy RP of the OPs campaign?).

None whatsoever!

That was kind of my original point: The base rules have problems (and all game rules do) but this one can be completely handled with a minor tweak. I offered an alternative scheme, though there are other possibilities, including some of your suggestions.

My second post here is more about Warlocks. The rest issue causes problems in many games, though not yours, as has been described ad nauseam. Their casting mechanism is also inferior, imo, both at the high end where their high level spells are fixed and at the low end, where they cannot nova and must use precious high level slots even for low level spells that cannot be upcast. That doesn't make Warlocks bad, because they have other class features too, that may or may not make up for spellcasting mechanics that I consider inferior to, say, a Wizard's.

I assure you the reason the OP is having his problems is becuase his DM is naive to the rest/ resource paradigm and how it works to ensure class balance. I doubt the OPs DM is only (or intentionally) running a game featuring zero short rests between long rests out of any 'story reasons' (unless the 'story' is one where Warlocks, Monks and Fighters are intended to suck).

I think that D&D, being the fundamental game system to the entire genre, intentionally designed for both veterans and especially neophytes, fails in its mission when a subsystem is difficult to use. And this paradigm clearly is difficult, because this topic arises so often. I'm not saying D&D5 is a failure! On most counts, it succeeds brilliantly in this goal. Not for this subsystem.

I also think that a very common story paradigm is one in which there is little room to rest between chapters or even stories. Dresden Files, Anita Blake, many others. Imposing consequences for enying rests creates tension! So it's easy to end up with either a 5MWD whose single ginormous dramatic encounter may or may not be preceded by intense rp, or with a long, long slog through encounters of escalating difficulty until our resource-depleted heroes must face the climactic encounter. These extremes are far more common, dramatically (here's where story again comes into the picture), than "two short rests per long rest, on average," a paradigm which I do not recognize from actual drama!

So it is easy, natural, and I might even say *right* for a GM to structure his game toward one of the extremes, and expect the rules to support this. No special "intention" needed.

Anyway,

Ken

[Ovarwa]

There probably isn't anything wrong with the game, the table is probably just playing the wrong game.

I don't like 4e so I don't play 4e. I don't think 4e is broken just because its design is counter to what I find fun.

Yes. You were not the problem; the system was a problem for you. You solved it by ditching the system, not by seeing the light and mending your ways.

[Malifice]

But many people have had issues.

I know. And its always down to the DM not understanding the rules. As I said in my first post in this thread.

A game subsystem that is difficult to manage, especially in a game intended for non-experts, is problematic, by my way of thinking.

I partly agree. There are advantages to doing it this way, but there are also disadvantages. There can be difficulty in managing disparate resources, that refresh using different mechanics at different rates.

And thats presuming your DM is aware of the phenomenon in the first place. I hazard a guess the OPs DM isnt aware of the phenomenon, and if he is, is ill equipped to manage it.

Given the paragraph above, I feel rather comfortable with my characterization: You're blaming the GM and the table for doing things you think are wrong.

No. I'm blaming the DM for the problems this player is facing. The DM is allowing the 5 minute (single encounter) adventuring day. Either by design or ignorance. Ergo the problems the OP had with his short rest based PC are entirely at the feet of the DM.

If the DM wanted single encounter adventuring days, he should have implemented the Gritty rest variant, tripled all short rest mechanics (and had them refresh on a long rest) banned the Warlock, Fighter and Monk classes, or similar.

The DM is either intentionally (he knows the difference between short rest/ long rest based classes, and understands the 6-8/2-3 short rest paradigm but willfully ignores it) or negligently (he doesnt understand the above) allowing it to happen.

Its either by design (he wants Warlocks to suck, or doesnt care if it does) or incompetence (he doesnt understand the rest/resource nature of the game, or is unable to police it). In either event, its the DMs fault.

I think that the encounter vs daily paradigm of D&D4 is superior to the short vs long rest paradigm of D&D5. It is easier to understand, easier for any group to do "correctly" and easily translates to "movie realism" in which characters are recharged between scenes.

But it also leads to the 'sameness' that many people did not like about 4E. Me being one of them.

By defining a refresh of powers as a rest, D&D5 ties the refresh to the story, which must now accomodate time for a rest. Story events and pacing must change to allow rests here but not there, or to perhaps impose consequences for some rests.

Cool. Then if your pacing is different from the default [storm the dungeon, clearing around half a dozen plus rooms, going room to room, slaying monsters and taking their stuff] then change the rules around how long those rests take, or how many you can take in a given period of time, or what benefits those rests grant you.

The DMG even gives guidance on how to do this, and provides different pacing option.

I think that some simpler mechanic, such as encounter/scene vs day/chapter as you suggest, or such as the variant I suggest, or even the variant in 13th Age (your variant, but there are always 4 encounters per day) is simpler. Your version also provides the benefit you wanted, of letting the GM control the number of encounters/refreshes per day. (My version posted to this thread provides the benefit of giving the *players* more control. A difference of philosophy at work?)

I both like having the ability to tweak the rests given (and move the spotlight from player to player) and dislike the extra burden it places on the DM (imposing doom clocks, and other contrivances to keep to a median 6/2 split and avod the 5 minute adventuring day).

I find a happy median to cut short rests down to 5 minutes, and impose a limit of a max of 2/day (and not more than 1 every 4 hours).

From there you can simply impose a doom clock to stop PCs from nuking one room, and then falling back to rest overnight. Or just simply say 'nope; thats gaming the rest mechanic and it doesnt fly at my table' or having the BBEG in the Dungeon simply relocate (quest fails) or reinforce the dungeon with double the monsters (quest fails/ becomes more difficult).

My second post here is more about Warlocks. The rest issue causes problems in many games, though not yours, as has been described ad nauseam. Their casting mechanism is also inferior, imo, both at the high end where their high level spells are fixed and at the low end, where they cannot nova and must use precious high level slots even for low level spells that cannot be upcast. That doesn't make Warlocks bad, because they have other class features too, that may or may not make up for spellcasting mechanics that I consider inferior to, say, a Wizard's.

I disagree. Not only do I DM a group, but I play in one as well (a Hexblade Warlock). I find once one gets a short rest every 2 or so encounters (as I do) then the class balances just fine.

I think that D&D, being the fundamental game system to the entire genre, intentionally designed for both veterans and especially neophytes, fails in its mission when a subsystem is difficult to use. And this paradigm clearly is difficult, because this topic arises so often. I'm not saying D&D5 is a failure! On most counts, it succeeds brilliantly in this goal. Not for this subsystem.

The subsystem is NOT difficult to use mate.

Ive run an entire campaign to 20th and havent found it difficult at all (imposition of a doom clock is the best way to go). Rescue the princess/ free the slaves/ stop the ritual/ recover the macguffin/ blow up the Death Star/ throw the Ring into Mount Doom by [midnight] or else she gets sacrificed/ the demon gets summoned/ the macguffin gets moved/ Yavin gets blown up/ Sauron wins etc.

The issue is with DMs who dont understand it, usually on account of the DM not reading - or understanding - the DMG, or a DM that does understand the subsystem and is too incompetent to do anything to police it, or alternatively he does understand the system and just doesnt care about the unbalancing effect of not policing it (like the OPs problems).

At the end of the day, its not the system. Its the DM.

If the DM understood the system, and sought to run his games in accordance with the system (and was competent enough to do so) the problem wouldnt exist.

So it is easy, natural, and I might even say *right* for a GM to structure his game toward one of the extremes, and expect the rules to support this. No special "intention" needed.

i reject the argument that a DM should be able to expect going against the expectations of the system, and the system should still support that extreme.

Thats like saying a DM who ignores the CR and XP budget guidelines of the encounter building section of the DMG and just throws CR 20 monsters at his party, should expect a different result other than repeated TPKs.

The reality is that the PCs will get creamed. Youre going against the expection of the system.

Ditto with ignoring the facts that:

1) DnD is (at its core) a resource based system,
2) Each class uses different methods of resource recovery (short or long rest; or in the case of the Rogue, largely resource neutral barring HP)
3) The game recommends (and the math is clearly based around) longer adventuring days [time between long rests] of multiple encounters featuring 2-3 short rests per long rest.

It should be rather self evident what happens when your campaign deviates from those expectations, without you as DM adressing the issue of rests. Playing against those expections is going to lead to issues.

If your story pacing is 0-3 encounters per game day, with lenghty periods of time spent in towns and such, then simply use the gritty rest variant.

[Talamare]

In fact, THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S ENTIRE POST IS ABOUT THE ISSUES HE HAS NOTICED AT HIS TABLE. You decided to declare his table and GM broken. But when a system and a table conflict, the game system is almost always the real problem.

Attempts to use Hammer to Screw in Nail...
Fails
Calls the Hammer Broken

[Zalabim]

Rubbish mate.

Blade pact Warlocks have an invocation that deals [spell level +1]d8 force damage and auto knocks you prone. At 17th level they get 4 of these each short rest [each one dealing 6d8 force damage].

You're white rooming this again.

Bull pucky. At level 11, Eldritch Blast gets another ray. At level 12, pact of the blade gets access to lifedrinker. At level 17, Eldritch Blast gets another ray. There is unquestionably a lag at level 11 and a slump at level 17 for pact of the blade's attacks compared to Eldritch Blast. The difference is livable, but it is a reversal of the position the two options had before. Most builds plug this gap with GWM or PM. An option that costs spell slots is quite unlike a cantrip. After one or two rounds, Eldritch Smite stops working.

Eldritch Smite is a universal option that's completely separate from the Hexblade patron. To whatever extent that Eldritch Smite fixes bladelocks at high levels, it's not the Hexblade patron. ES does add a useful tool to the arsenal by giving the build a way to spend extra spell slots that doesn't care about spellcasting ability and isn't limited by spell durations (AoA), concentration (Hex), or patron access (Fire Shield). It just isn't comparable to dealing more damage every turn.

Eldritch Smite's 6d8 damage is undercut when the action spent on attacking is less damaging than the alternative to begin with. The initial attack has to be worthwhile too, and Hexblade bladelocks bridge the high level scaling gap the same way as any other patron. Instead, hexblades get a bigger gap to bridge since their EB option comes with higher AC and more bonus damage when using Hexblade's Curse.

6d8 damage isn't even very good. It's good when doubled on a critical hit, but otherwise it's going to be hard to justify using before Armor of Agathys, crowd control (like Hypnotic Pattern), crowd removal (like Cone of Cold for Hexblades), Hellish Rebuke if the right target damages you, and plain Hex if you aren't getting damaged. Eldritch Smite comes in as a second or third place option. It may be used, but don't count on seeing it 4 times per short rest if you live anywhere other than a padded, white cell.

Well if you're into that genre, it was pretty revolutionary. Compare to games like Doom/Quake and even Half Life previously, it was a major step for FPS games. There's a reason its core mechanics were (and are) aped for two console generations.

Like the mechanic of regaining your shields if you can take a short break from the fight instead of relying only on health pickups.

I actually think MC-ing in general is preferable to single class characters as it provides a lot more options. Story-wise, I find very few characters that fit the mold of a single class ("all I've ever done is sell my soul to a fiend" vs "I was always a fighter until the day I chose power over my freedom"). Likewise, having options when you level beyond ASIs/Feats allows one to craft the character in how they want it to play.

Multiclassing is fine, but don't forget that people can be things other than adventurers. This is what backgrounds are supposed to encourage.

[Waazraath]

Attempts to use Hammer to Screw in Nail...
Fails
Calls the Hammer Broken

+100. Was about to post a long rant about this, thanks for saving my time.

[Malifice]

Bull pucky. At level 11, Eldritch Blast gets another ray. At level 12, pact of the blade gets access to lifedrinker.

At level 11 you get an extra slot. This adds an extra smite to the Hexblade.

If you really want to white room it, lets work off the median of most campaigns, using the median encounter and rest guidelines of the DMG. Level 12.

Hexblade [blade pact] 12. Vuman (+1 Cha and Con). Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 20. Feats/ ASI: GWM; PAM, +4 Cha. Invocations [Improved pact weapon, thirsting blade, eldritch smite, life drinker, 2 more utility]

No magic items, Hexblades curse and Hex [lasts all day] active: Hit +10, damage 1d10+1d6+15 [x2] and +10, 1d4+1d6+15 [options GWM -5/+10, cleave, divine smite +6d8 force and knock prone if L or smaller].

Hexblade [Tome] 12: Vuman (stats the same) Feats/ ASI: Spellsniper, +4 Cha, Resileint [Con] or Warcaster. Invocations [Agonizing blast, Repelling blast, Maddening hex, Book of Secrets, 2 more utility]

No magic items, Hexblades curse and Hex [lasts all day] active: EB: Hit +9, damage 1d10+1d6+9 [x3] and +5 Psychic [ranged, knock back with EB if hit].

Ignoring the Blade pacts higher to hit bonus [the maths is easier if I assume both are at +10; actual DPR is lower for the Tome-lock], the total max damage for each [also ignoring Smite, and GWM cleave] per round, average damage vs AC 15:

Blade pact: 69 DPR
Tome pact: 59 DPR

Both get three chances of critting each round [19-20], but those crits favor our Blade-Hex-Lock more [his smites double on a crit, and it lets him swap his 1d4 damage offhand PAM attack with a proper swing].

We also need to add in the fact the Blade Pact is also adding in:

Cleave on a kill [better damage than the extra PAM extra attack], GWM's -5/+10 [enough has been written about his here and elsewhere to know it's strong], Eldritch smite - even factoring in just the 2 smites per short rest [and the third slot used for casting something else like AoA or re-establishing Hex] +12d8 force, and also ignoring the Hexblades likely magic weapon [many of which stack with Improved Pact weapon like Flame tounges, and Lifedrinkers and such].

After one or two rounds, Eldritch Smite stops working.

Dumping an extra +6d8 damage (force damage) 1/ encounter (with 3/ short rest from 11th this is viable; the expectation is around 2 encounters per short rest) adds an extra +6d8 damage into the above numbers (where the Blade lock is already ahead).

Over 5 rounds, presuming the Blade lock only spams Smite when he hits (he gets to choose) the expected average damage vs AC 15 is:

Blade: [5 x 69] + [27] = 372.
Tome: [59 x 5] = 295.

Adding extra rounds, only widens the gap more.

[Willie the Duck]

i keep seeing my point proven over and over,

I was going to say something about declaring one's point proven, but Vogie did it well enough.

You point isn't proven, it's just you interpreting disparate information as supporting your opinion, even when it doesn't.

I actually like the design of the warlock and I feel it does a pretty good job if your the sit back and blast them type of caster. I just feel like it falls apart with the hexblade sub-class when your trying to be more close quarters combat.

I will tentatively agree, but this is not (in my mind) a problem of the hexblade(-lock)--it is the problem of the gish. And it is an old problem. Going back to OD&D when your elf could advance as a Fighting Man and as a Magic User. Nearly each edition has tried multiple ways to capture this idea without being either overpowered, or being just not-quite-good-enough at both roles that you really can't do either well. 5e has many Gishes-like classes, subclasses, and builds (depending on how broadly one defines the concept). Eldritch Knights are seen as solid, well-designed fighters whose main flaw is that they aren't really that mage-y (so much as fighters who cast shield several times/day). Clerics are a solid class, but less of a gish than they used to be. Valor Bards are seen as rather underwhelming in the combat arena (perhaps rightfully so, as being full casters as well). Bladesinger wizards as well, are full casters who pretend they are combatants (mostly by being able to get decent AC). Hexbladelocks are seen (rightfully, I think) as a fix for the overall bladelock, and that messy middle of not-quite-full-caster (even though they cast up to 9th level spells, and at the same increase progression as clerics and wizards) with decent combat ability (they are not as MAD as something like a valor bard that actually wants to fight, etc.), and some spells and abilities that support their combat role... just not as well as the paladin.

And that's the long and short of it. The paladin is a really well-done gish. It is MAD (unless, as you suggest, you go MC hexbladelock 3-paladin x-3), but that's about its only limitation. It has spells like Bless and the smite spells which synergize with its combat role. It has a mechanic (the basic smite mechanic) which allows you to use its' spellcasting abilities in combat even if you don't have the perfect spell for the situation. If it spends all its' spells on smiting (so, much like the Eldritch Knight, it is a caster in name only), it still has magic-style abilities like lay on hands and granting saving throw bonuses to give it a magic user-y feel. So against that comparison, the hexbladelock (and the ranger, and the other gishes), pales in comparison.

To my mind, though, not moreso. Not if you are in a group where enough short rests are being done to also make the battlemaster and monks and inspiration-based bards feel useful.

[Willie the Duck]

But many people have had issues. This is far from the first thread with complaints along these lines. A game subsystem that is difficult to manage, especially in a game intended for non-experts, is problematic, by my way of thinking.

Having come up from plenty of gaming systems (that were intended for non-experts/general audience) such as TSR-era D&D, storyteller system, or Champions/HERO System, my reaction to this is that all systems have some form of this problem. Some are vaguely better than others, but in general, you are really just trading between systems for the one with the problem that you personally don't mind.

Hmm. I think that the main issues besetting D&D4 were different, mostly about the game not feeling at all like D&D.
...
I think that the encounter vs daily paradigm of D&D4 is superior to the short vs long rest paradigm of D&D5. It is easier to understand, easier for any group to do "correctly" and easily translates to "movie realism" in which characters are recharged between scenes.

Well, part of what made D&D4e not feel 'like D&D' was that it moved too far away from the 'per day' paradigm and towards a 'per encounter' mentality. Exactly how much that was a factor is a debate that will never end (along with all the rehashing of why 4e failed to capture the market).

But D&D4 was not at all adventuring day neutral. Some classes had great dailies at the expense of other powers. Other classes had great at-wills at the expense of other powers. Etc. And there were a few classes that were far superior to all the others, mocking any notion of balancing anything.

So... it was just a muted version of the same thing we're discussing here about 5e? That about right?

By defining a refresh of powers as a rest, D&D5 ties the refresh to the story, which must now accommodate[ time for a rest. Story events and pacing must change to allow rests here but not there, or to perhaps impose consequences for some rests.

This can be made to work, as you have done, but adds a degree of difficulty to maintaining both story integrity and game balance.

Perhaps. Although again I'd posit that this is true of all gaming systems, and that the one you (general you, not you specifically) see as being free of it is in fact just the one whose artifice you can look past. I do think the return to /day (and /SR) mechanics 5e has is part of the return to early TSR-era sandbox gamin where the story is supposed to be emergent from the gameplay, and less crafted.

I think that some simpler mechanic, such as encounter/scene vs day/chapter

There is a near perfect example of this--the Champions/HERO System model. Powers and abilities (including martial attacks and jumps and the like) are powered by Endurance Points*, of which you likely have between 50 and 200 points, abilities cost maybe 2-20 of, and you recharge between 4 and 20 pts per 12 second round. Thus you can drain your entire reserve and recharge to maximum capacity in no more than maybe 10 minutes. This is as close as I know of to a pure per-encounter mechanism. And you know what? At least to me, it doesn't make the game feel simpler, less artificial, or like the mechanics influence the story any less than D&D's does. It really feels like, "different, but not better," towards achieving those ends.
*One can optionally power things through 'Charges,' which are an X/Day mechanic. But this is effectively a 'if you would prefer a D&D-like recharge mechanic, you can...' option.

[Zalabim]

@Malifice: You aren't disproving that Pact of the Blade lags at level 11. You aren't disproving that Pact of the Blade lags more at level 17. You aren't disproving that Hexblade doesn't particularly help pact of the blade at these levels. You also aren't doing theorycrafting right by ignoring action limits and you list AC but don't actually calculate average damage against that AC.

Spoiler: In the box for boring stuff.

Show

So on Round one, each build can use Hexblade's curse but doesn't have Hex in place yet, so they deal 41 (33.9 vs AC 15) for blade and 43.5 (34.275 vs AC 15) for tome.

On Round two, each build adds Hex but can't use their other bonus action ability yet, so they deal 48 (40.2 vs AC 15) for blade and 54 (43.2 vs AC 15) for tome.

Finally on Round three, each build has both their curses in effect and can use their bonus actions freely to deal even more damage, so they deal 69 (57.6 vs AC 15) for blade and 59 (48.2 vs AC 15) for tome.

And none of this proves a damn thing because it's too unrelated to my point.

To provide a point of comparison, Pact of the Blade with a different Patron:

Fiend [blade pact] 12. Vuman (+1 Cha and Str). Str 20, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 16 or 18. Feats/ ASI: Moderately Armored (+1 Str); Heavily Armored (+1 Str); +2 Str; +2 Cha or PM. Invocations [Improved pact weapon, thirsting blade, eldritch smite, life drinker, 2 more utility]

No magic items, Hex optional. Greatsword: Hit +10, damage 2d6+10 [x2]. damage 3d6+10 [x2] with hex
PM: Hit +10, damage 1d10+9 [x2] and +10, 1d4+9. damage 1d10+1d6+9[x2] and 1d4+1d6+9 with hex

Fiend [Tome] 12: Vuman (+1 Con and Cha). Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 20. Feats/ ASI: Spellsniper, +4 Cha, Resilient [Con] or Warcaster. Invocations [Agonizing blast, Repelling blast, Maddening hex, Book of Secrets, 2 more utility]

No magic items, Hex part of regular strategy. Eldritch Blast: Hit +9, damage 1d10+1d6+5 [x3] force. +5 psychic.

So to start off resourcelessly, the Sword does 34 average damage, the Pole does 40.5, and the Blast does 31.5 with slightly lower to hit. Adding in round by round tactics and AC for a side-by-side:

Round one, they all use Hex, S does 41 (33.85 vs AC 15), P does 36 (29.35 vs AC 15), and B does 42 (32.85 vs AC 15).

Round two, they can all use a bonus action (Sword can take maddening hex for the sake of example), so S does 45 (37.85 vs AC 15), P does 51 (41.65 vs AC 15), and B does 47 (37.85 vs AC 15).

These are two characters of the same patron who actually have different builds, different strengths and weaknesses, and different tactics. One cannot seamlessly become the other. The hexblade does more damage with blade than the fiend, and the same damage with eldritch blast, but look at the other factors. In the Fiend case, S and P are heavily armored with up to 18 AC. B is lightly armored with AC 14 or 15. In the hexblade case, both characters are wearing medium armor with the same stats, up to 17 AC, but the Tome warlock can use a shield for 19 AC. If you consider a third, dexterity focused Fiend or Fey bladelock, that one will also have better AC than B at this point.

[Malifice]

@Malifice: You aren't disproving that Pact of the Blade lags at level 11.

Im not sure that it does. You can scrub lifedrinker seeing as we're 11th level, but please also add +18d8 force damage from eldritch smite.

It only gets spammed on a hit. Which we can safely assume the Blade-lock does 3 times in the 2 combats between short rests.

Why are you discounting this invocation?

You aren't disproving that Pact of the Blade lags more at level 17.

Its +24d8 force damage, enough for 2 smites per encounter [again presuming a median of 2 encounters per short rest] at that level for the blade lock.

Double those dice for crits, which at 19-20, should be happening a fair bit.

[Zalabim]

Im not sure that it does. You can scrub lifedrinker seeing as we're 11th level, but please also add +18d8 force damage from eldritch smite.

It only gets spammed on a hit. Which we can safely assume the Blade-lock does 3 times in the 2 combats between short rests.

Why are you discounting this invocation?

Spell slots aren't free. The value of a smite isn't 6d8. It's 6d8, doubled on a crit, minus whatever that spell slot would have otherwise been used for. I'd need something to compare the smite damage to in order to make a comparison. Just eyeballing it, Eldritch Smite looks to be of comparable value to its competition for limited spell slots. I'm not going to assume those slots would otherwise have no value.

[Willie the Duck]

This is true. Although it should be mentioned that the ability to stack them onto your martial attacks needs to be included in the decision-analysis weighting.

[Malifice]

This is true. Although it should be mentioned that the ability to stack them onto your martial attacks needs to be included in the decision-analysis weighting.

This.

At 11th level the blade warlock could stack all 3 smites on to all 3 of his melee attacks on round 1. Whacking +18d8 damage on top of his already high damage, is pretty impressive in a single round. More if he crits.

That's a trick that the EB spammer cant do.

And yes I am aware that the Eldrich blast spammer can cast spells, but so can the blade lock.

A fair assumption is the Bladelock will be in melee, stacking the odd smite on top of DPR. The more caster orientated warlock will be handing back, spamming Eldrich blasts and dropping the occasional AoE or SoS spell in instead.

Mind you the blade lock can still do that as well. The 11th level hex blade lock can simply drop three cones of cold if he needs area effects.

[RSP]

Multiclassing is fine, but don't forget that people can be things other than adventurers. This is what backgrounds are supposed to encourage.

Not sure what your intent is here. NPCs can be things other than adventures, but the point of the game is to play an adventurer and be something more than a common person.

Backgrounds help define what the player character was before progressing into that something more.

[Arial Black]

i keep seeing my point proven over and over, even with "super awesome specialist builds" (melee, blaster, social) warlock comes down to do i use EB or do i use EB? lather rinse repeat.

Fighters come down to 'do I use my sword or do I not use my sword', lather, rinse, repeat.

Therefore, fighters are badly designed?

Over nearly 40 years of D&D since 1e I usually play melee warrior-types and usually (especially since 3e) multi-class warriors.

So far in 5e I have actually played:-

* Ftr7 - HotDQ
* Pal2/War3 - homebrew pirate game
* Rog1/Mnk4 - PotA
* Ftr1/War11 - CoS
* Bar5/War1 - SKT
* Bar1/War2 - Dragondrop campaign

So, 5 out of 6 have been multi-class, and the other would have been but at each level I liked the next fighter level more than any of his other class options. So when I play a multi-class warlock it isn't because I only thing warlocks are for is a 'dip class' but because I like warlocks and I like multi-classing to get the character I want.

4 out of six have been multi-class warlocks.

The first (Pal2/War3) was made at that level for that campaign. He had eldritch blast but none of the supporting invocations, fiendish chainpact, would much rather attack with sword than with EB.

Next, the Ftr1/War11 was for the Curse of Strahd campaign, starting at Ftr1 and then going warlock all the way, Undying bladepact, TWFing like mad. Did not have EB at all.

Next, the Bar5/War1 started SKT as a Bar3 berserker, got to Bar5, intended to be an Undying Light chainpact but mainly being barbarian. Did not have EB at all.

My current PC started as Bar1, then intends to take warlock until Bar1/War5 fiendish bladepact with GWM, then get two more Bar levels to get Zealot for Bar3/War5, then intends to go warlock all the way to a theoretical Bar3/War17. No EB at all.

So, out of 4 warlocks only 1 has EB and that was as a backup to his greatsword.

So much for warlocks only being about spamming EB with all the enhancements.

[Mister_Squinty]

My current PC started as Bar1, then intends to take warlock until Bar1/War5 fiendish bladepact with GWM, then get two more Bar levels to get Zealot for Bar3/War5, then intends to go warlock all the way to a theoretical Bar3/War17. No EB at all.

So, out of 4 warlocks only 1 has EB and that was as a backup to his greatsword.

So much for warlocks only being about spamming EB with all the enhancements.

I don't think anyone has argued that Warlock isn't a great multi-class option. From my observations, they are far better as a MC option than a single class "pure" Lock.

[Arial Black]

I don't think anyone has argued that Warlock isn't a great multi-class option. From my observations, they are far better as a MC option than a single class "pure" Lock.

Actually, when the campaign started I had intended to play a single class Hexblade, relying on Cha to wield a greatsword, as well as exploring the new Xanather's options.

However, the DM wanted us to roll stats. I rolled the best set of stats I can remember: 18 17 17 14 13 6. I thought that, as a variant human, those two bonus +1s could give me three 18s!

Although I could've gone with my original idea (as I had an 18 and would probably have gone half-elf for 20 Cha and access to Elven Accuracy), the prospect of having a physically perfect human (three 18s in Str/Dex/Con) was too rare an opportunity to pass up.

I had just had my SKT campaign cut short and was enjoying playing a Bar/War, and so I quickly got the idea to use that physical perfection to get, after racial mods, Str 18 Dex 18 Con 18 Int 6 Wis 13 Cha 14. Sure, I expected to be mainly warlock and Cha 14 is nothing special, but I got a great idea for a backstory explaining his physicality (I won't bore you all, but it's the werewolf equivalent of how Blade got to be half-vampire) and I'll probably never roll stats like that again!

One of the features of rolling for stats is that you see your rolls and then use them as a springboard for your imagination. If I'd've rolled badly I probably would've been half-elf and gone with the original single-class Hexblade since that is SAD, while a Bar/War is definitely on the MAD side.