Hexblade warlock is powerful for the wrong reasons and warlock

[Davrix]

So after playing my lv 10 hex-blade this week I really do feel that some of the hate it gets is very much based around the idea of how GOOD the lv 1 or 2 dip into the class because of the high benefits its front loaded with. That being said, it really feels though as a pure class... warlock in general is very frustrating and annoying to play. specifically the hex-blade because it fails to do the job its meant to. It sure does sound cool on paper but I mean... ugh the 2 spell slot system just kills you and in all honestly you are served 10x better by simply going far enough in to Lv 3 and dump the rest into Sorc for quicken. This is also compounded depending on the table your playing under. My table especially rarely does more then one combat between long rests. We tend to role-play and do things based on skills rather then hitting things, so when combat does happen it tends to be big epic or serving some purpose in the narrative because we picked the fight or it came about from actions made. So yea it SUPER feels constrained under these conditions and while I realize not every table is this way, I do know others are just like it and yea its even worse when your not getting the benefit of the short rest recharge during the adventure day.

But lets break this down into 2 brief builds

Example 1 blaster hexblade / Sorc Lv 3 hex & Lv 8 Sorc

Spoiler

Show

Now I'm not going to optimize this but for the sake of it imagine a 20 Char score here.

First round, slap him up with the Hexblade curse, quicken EB and fire it twice for 6 attacks all of which will have the chance of dealing (1D10+9)
Turn 2, slap on Hex and repeat said attack 6 bolts each doing 1D10+9 and then each time you hit Hex triggers for its damage and you get +4 from your Prof... ok yea great blasting range for your close combat warlock subclass.

Example 2 - Pure hex-blade at Lv 11

Spoiler

Show

Armor of hexes is nice here don't get me wrong. But lets look at the attack.

You get to swing your sword twice. (for the sake its a big 2hander) and your hexblade curse is on for it

so 2D6 or 1D12 + 9 twice .... that's it your done oh wait what about the smite invocations? Yes thats super nice for a nova but what if you need Shield for a hit or you want to cast darkness or any of the other 12+ spells you probably have at this point? Well your Lv 11 at this point so you do have 3 spell slots which is a little better on resources but once those are gone you simply either swing your sword twice and hope Armor of hexes protects you. Or you pull back and start using eldritch blast because even as a pure lock its 3 beam attacks with the +9 base if it hits, which on average should do more DPR then your sword. Oh and your not in the face of anything so your safer overall.

So yea, please someone tell me I've got this wrong. That I'm dumb and built the pure lock wrong or I'm missing some rule that will magically make them better in close combat because right now I am seriously not impressed by them. And at the very least I could make a strong case more then any of the other warlock pacts, this version benefits the most from using the spell point conversion. Because even at only 21 spell points at Lv 11 Your going to be able to at least DO more, cast a Lv 3 fly if you need it. Or drop a darkness on a area and don't feel bad if it doesn't work out. it doesn't feel like an all or nothing moment when the big bad is about to hit you and you have to blow a shield in hopes it saves your ass, knowing your wasting a lv 5 spell slot on it.

But on one last note about balance if a DM should (and mine is after tonight's fight) Use spell points. You need to limit Eldritch Smite to the limit of how many spells slots the warlock has at their current level. So if they have 2 spell slots they can smite twice, three slots 3 times per short rest. Otherwise you can spend 2 spell points and just knock everything prone without a single save against it. That's just to damn much power but as far as I can tell its the only REAL unbalancing thing that occurs in converting to spell points. The new flexibility of the class really helps out.

[Malifice]

You're playing a short rest-based class in a game that doesn't feature any short rests.

Even worse it only features one combat encounter per long rest. Meaning long rest-based classes like Paladin and Wizard and other casters can nova like mad.

Accordingly they are getting about 20 spell slots per day to your 2.

This isn't a fault of the class. It's a fault with your group. Or more specifically with your Dungeon Master.

You are expected to be getting between two and three short rests per long rest. At that rest frequency they are awesome.

[Talamare]

The problem isn't with Warlocks, the problem is with the DnD system is inherently designed with a specific adventure layout...
and Everyone tries to play it in a style that is contrary to that layout...

You're addressing a Symptom, not the Core Issue.

I played in a similar game once where it was significantly more skill focused, I was playing a Druid; but we did have a Warlock who was borderline broken because of how we were playing. Basically there were perpetual Short Rests because there were only a few things to do every hour. Thus he was able to cast roughly 15-20 spells per day.

Obviously, this isn't what the system intended.

[Davrix]

You're playing a short rest-based class in a game that doesn't feature any short rests.

Even worse it only features one combat encounter per long rest. Meaning long rest-based classes like Paladin and Wizard and other casters can nova like mad.

Accordingly they are getting about 20 spell slots per day to your 2.

This isn't a fault of the class. It's a fault with your group. Or more specifically with your Dungeon Master.

You are expected to be getting between two and three short rests per long rest. At that rest frequency they are awesome.

No its not the Dm's fault, as i stated above. We as a party tend to role play more and deal with skill checks rather then fights. We have many encounters just not ones around combat. As someone stated just below your post, this is a flaw of the system itself because its designed around the idea of having several short rests in the work day and we just don't utilize them as a group.

The problem isn't with Warlocks, the problem is with the DnD system is inherently designed with a specific adventure layout...
and Everyone tries to play it in a style that is contrary to that layout...

You're addressing a Symptom, not the Core Issue.

I played in a similar game once where it was significantly more skill focused, I was playing a Druid; but we did have a Warlock who was borderline broken because of how we were playing. Basically there were perpetual Short Rests because there were only a few things to do every hour. Thus he was able to cast roughly 15-20 spells per day.

Obviously, this isn't what the system intended.

Your right but trying to address the Core issue is a MUCH bigger thread then this one is. But I agree with everything you have just said. I'm just trying to fix the hex-blade right now sense its falling very very short in all things or just warlock in general.

[Snivlem]

If you are rarely doing more than 1 fight per day, your DM should consider switching to the "gritty realism" optional rules in DMG (short rest = 8 hours, long rest = a week) if you want to keep some balance in the game between long rest casters and other characters.

I don't really agree with some others that this is the fault of your DM. It is a serious flaw with the system. Requiring 6 - 8 encounters on an adventure day to keep things balanced, is just silly. Your DM can adopt, however, by switching to gritty realism rules (but unfortunately any long casters will probably not be happy with this switch mid-campaign)

[Davrix]

If you are rarely doing more than 1 fight per day, your DM should consider switching to the "gritty realism" optional rules in DMG (short rest = 8 hours, long rest = a week) if you want to keep some balance in the game between long rest casters and other characters.

I don't really agree with some others that this is the fault of your DM. It is a serious flaw with the system. Requiring 6 - 8 encounters on an adventure day to keep things balanced, is just silly. Your DM can adopt, however, by switching to gritty realism rules (but unfortunately any long casters will probably not be happy with this switch mid-campaign)

It can hardly be are Dm's fault when we as a party actively try to avoid combat and try to talk, scheme or sneak through any combat we can manage half the time. Its just how we like to play. So when it does happen it tends to be big event fights that we do usually go Nova on. The gritty realism rules might be a good solution and were all good friends, the campaign has been going on 5 years now and we made the switch from 4th to 5th so trying this rule out wound't break us either.

[sithlordnergal]

Yeah, that is a weakness of the warlock. Even if yoy were getting your short rests every day, you'd still be stuck with 2 spell slots per encounter. Which for smiting abilities, doesn't amount to much. You get to blast someone twice really hard...then you have to fall on cantrips. Cause you used your slots to smite.

That said, Warlocks are better when you have more short rests.

[Snivlem]

It can hardly be are Dm's fault when we as a party actively try to avoid combat and try to talk, scheme or sneak through any combat we can manage half the time. Its just how we like to play. So when it does happen it tends to be big event fights that we do usually go Nova on. The gritty realism rules might be a good solution and were all good friends, the campaign has been going on 5 years now and we made the switch from 4th to 5th so trying this rule out wound't break us either.

Good.Then it definetly sounds like you should consider doing this change (or at least you should bring it up for discussion) - the rule is made for groups like yours.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think it’s working as intended. I’ve always thought of a melee warlock as the ‘Glass Cannon Gish’ option, with only slightly more durability as a hexblade.

Other have already touched on the issue of adventuring days and rests so I’ll leave that be.

I think a lot of people want to play the hexblade as a full caster with an answer for everything, which is just not going to work. If anyone is designed to nova and nova often it’s the warlock, so use those smites or big spells then use the invocations you have and other features to fill in the gaps. I’ve played hexblade up to 10 without an MC and it’s a blast if you play without regrets to spell slots. Take a short rest when you need can, but besides that your kind of like the spell variant of a barbarian without rage.

[Knaight]

It can hardly be are Dm's fault when we as a party actively try to avoid combat and try to talk, scheme or sneak through any combat we can manage half the time. Its just how we like to play. So when it does happen it tends to be big event fights that we do usually go Nova on. The gritty realism rules might be a good solution and were all good friends, the campaign has been going on 5 years now and we made the switch from 4th to 5th so trying this rule out wound't break us either.

It's not the DM's fault, but it is a case of a game not working as well when used for stuff it wasn't designed for. The gritty realism rules should pull it back to the design parameters, and thus fix this issue.

[Grod_The_Giant]

By giving different resource recovery rates to different classes, 5e made the game much more vulnerable to changes in the number of combats/rest. One suggestion I've heard has been to convert short-rest abilities to long-rest ones by tripling their uses-- ie, Warlocks would get six spell slots/long rest, rather than two/short rest.

But if the gritty rest thing doesn't pan out, you'd probably be fine with switching the Warlock to normal spell slots.

[Spacehamster]

It can hardly be are Dm's fault when we as a party actively try to avoid combat and try to talk, scheme or sneak through any combat we can manage half the time. Its just how we like to play. So when it does happen it tends to be big event fights that we do usually go Nova on. The gritty realism rules might be a good solution and were all good friends, the campaign has been going on 5 years now and we made the switch from 4th to 5th so trying this rule out wound't break us either.

When playing like that the class is worse than long rest based classes for sure, and best avoided in the future if you always play this type of games.

My party always do dungeon delves with lots of combat and 2-3 short rests per day and for that the hexblade(or any warlock) would be good. :)

[Asmotherion]

You are, utlimatelly a Gish/Caster. It is a good class design.

You can get more attacks by investing an invocation and the PAM feat. You can also put all your attack power in one go, by attacking with the BB/GFB cantrip instead of the regular attack action (It's restricted only in Adventure League, but playing this build with your D&D group is a very normal option).

You happen to have the Versality of Ranged options, and that's great. But your best damage is done with weapons, espessially if you contribute your Hexblade's Curse. Thus you're very good in Boss Fights with your Hexblade.

In out of combat situations, you still have some options through cantrips and Invocations. If you see that combat is not going to be the main focus of the campain, pick utility at-will Invocations rather than combat ones. Having more tricks up your sleeve is always a nice thing.

[Arial Black]

So yea, please someone tell me I've got this wrong...

...okay...

...that I'm dumb and built the pure lock wrong or I'm missing some rule that will magically make them better in close combat because right now I am seriously not impressed by them.

'Dumb' is the wrong word. This situation is a good example of the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom. It's not that you lack the intelligence to work this out, it's that you are not using the wisdom to actually be bothered to use your intelligence to solve this problem.

You're basically complaining that a class with 2 slots doesn't nova like a class with 15. Well, yeah. But why would anyone choose to play a 2 slot PC as if it were a 15 slot PC? And then complain about it?

The short rest/long rest thing has been mentioned. I won't say it again, but it remains true.

The other problem is that you are driving a Ferrari and complaining about its massive fuel consumption when compared to a Toyota, or driving a Toyota and complaining about its top speed compared to a Ferrari.

Every class has its own mix of strengths and weaknesses. Wise players (note that I didn't say intelligent players!) play to their chosen class's strengths and minimise its weaknesses. Foolish players (a different thing to stupid players!) play to their chosen class's weaknesses! That's what you're doing here.

The good news is that there is nothing wrong with your intelligence, and once the problem has been identified then you can easily address the problems. In this case, just identify the strengths of your chosen class and play to maximise them!

For instance, warlocks are not intended to win fights by casting slotted spells round after round after round; they are intended to maybe use one or two slots to affect the combat significantly (crowd control, environment control, continuing self-buffs) and rely on the other things they have which never run out (heavily modified eldritch blasts, hexblade greatsword attacks, invocations). They don't need to use a spell slot at all in some encounters!

And that's just in combat. Outside of combat you can use your skills just like everyone else, but make sure that some of your known spells are utility type spells that would be useful outside combat: comprehend languages, suggestion, charm person, that kind of thing. You can cast way more than two of these in the campaign you describe, because since you aren't doing anything stressful most of the time then your slots replenish every hour without you needing to set it up. You can be pottering around the city, asking questions, using skills, and then ask the DM, "has it been at least an hour since I last did anything stressful?", and if the answer is "yes" then you have just had a short rest and got your slots back.

I imagine the next thread will be from a wizard player complaining that his wizard is seriously under-powered compared to that warlock who gets to cast 16 5th level spells per day because the party take a short rest after every fight.

[Throne12]

If you are rarely doing more than 1 fight per day, your DM should consider switching to the "gritty realism" optional rules in DMG (short rest = 8 hours, long rest = a week) if you want to keep some balance in the game between long rest casters and other characters.

I don't really agree with some others that this is the fault of your DM. It is a serious flaw with the system. Requiring 6 - 8 encounters on an adventure day to keep things balanced, is just silly. Your DM can adopt, however, by switching to gritty realism rules (but unfortunately any long casters will probably not be happy with this switch mid-campaign)

How is it the system fault. If you play by the system everything is fine. It when you don't go by the RULES of the game. Is when it's not working.

You don't say my car is sahit because it don't fly like a air plane.

It's the DM's fault for not playing to the system.

DM'S are not Infallible creatures!

[Mister_Squinty]

You're playing a short rest-based class in a game that doesn't feature any short rests.

This isn't a fault of the class. It's a fault with your group. Or more specifically with your Dungeon Master.

You are expected to be getting between two and three short rests per long rest. At that rest frequency they are awesome.

It sounds like we need to lay the blame on whatever game designer made a class that requires the DM to metagame to for the class to be effective.

"Yeah, per union rules, our adventuring day is 8 hours long, with a lunch at noon and two designated smoke breaks. Anything less and we go on strike."

[Mister_Squinty]

How is it the system fault. If you play by the system everything is fine. It when you don't go by the RULES of the game. Is when it's not working.

You don't say my car is sahit because it don't fly like a air plane.

It's the DM's fault for not playing to the system.

There is no "rule" saying how many fights a DM has to have in an adventuring day. Mandating that is contrary to the collaborative storytelling fundamentals of the game. It's the designers' fault for making a "car" that is only good for a drag race. If you want to drive a drag car in the 24 Hours of Le Mans, don't blame the race when you run out of gas in lap 3.

[Knaight]

How is it the system fault. If you play by the system everything is fine. It when you don't go by the RULES of the game. Is when it's not working.

You don't say my car is sahit because it don't fly like a air plane.

It's the DM's fault for not playing to the system.

There's a case to be made that the DM should have picked a different system better suited for their game, but the system deserves some of the blame here. It presents itself as a generic fantasy game, able to work for basically any fantasy campaign. A relentless focus on resource management doesn't show up anywhere in the advertising, internal description, design notes (which blur into advertising more than a little), etc. That it then turns out to be highly specialized towards very specific parameters which were never mentioned.

Criticizing a car for not flying is one thing, and if someone was trying to run a science fiction game in D&D it would be an applicable analogy. This is criticizing a car for being unable to handle an inch of snow.

[Aett_Thorn]

There's a case to be made that the DM should have picked a different system better suited for their game, but the system deserves some of the blame here. It presents itself as a generic fantasy game, able to work for basically any fantasy campaign. A relentless focus on resource management doesn't show up anywhere in the advertising, internal description, design notes (which blur into advertising more than a little), etc. That it then turns out to be highly specialized towards very specific parameters which were never mentioned.

Criticizing a car for not flying is one thing, and if someone was trying to run a science fiction game in D&D it would be an applicable analogy. This is criticizing a car for being unable to handle an inch of snow.

Can we suggest that this issue be taken up in a UA article? Seriously, this whole short-rest/long-rest dynamic causes a seemingly significant amount of problems in games and on these forums.

[ad_hoc]

It sounds like we need to lay the blame on whatever game designer made a class that requires the DM to metagame to for the class to be effective.

"Yeah, per union rules, our adventuring day is 8 hours long, with a lunch at noon and two designated smoke breaks. Anything less and we go on strike."

It's okay to not like 5e. There are plenty of other games out there.

I love the design and I think the team did a great job.

[Malifice]

No its not the Dm's fault, as i stated above. We as a party tend to role play more and deal with skill checks rather then fights. We have many encounters just not ones around combat.

Yes it is the DM's fault.

In a campaign where the PCs are only getting one fight per day, the DM should use the gritty rest variant.

And what kind of dungeons are you exploring when you're only having one combat encounter over an entire day?

[Malifice]

It sounds like we need to lay the blame on whatever game designer made a class that requires the DM to metagame to for the class to be effective.

The DM's job is to meta-game. It always has been.

And policing an adventuring day is not meta-gaming. Players spamming a five minute work day on the other hand, is meta-gaming.

And before you say the rules can't handle the game the OP is playing, consider that they can. If you open up your Dungeon Masters guide its right in there (different rest variants and so forth).

The problem the OP is having is with his Dungeon Master.

[Mister_Squinty]

It's okay to not like 5e. There are plenty of other games out there.

I love the design and I think the team did a great job.

I don't have a problem with 5e in general. I have a problem with a single class, built along completely different lines than the rest of the classes, forcing the DM to play a very specific style of game to make that specific class viable.

5e can handle any style of game, it's a great framework. But PC Warlocks encourage/force the DM to budget for a number of short rests, lest the Warlock player run into the OP's issue. If the DM wants to run a race against the clock, where the PCs are desperately trying to accomplish their goals in a short number of days, the Warlock is going to feel underpowered. If the DM accommodates for that, the dramatic tension is lessened.

Throw in how Warlock multi-classing leads to giant wheels of cheese like "coffeelock", and it becomes increasingly clear the class doesn't play well with the rest of the system.

[Waazraath]

Yes it is the DM's fault.

In a campaign where the PCs are only getting one fight per day, the DM should use the gritty rest variant.

And what kind of dungeons are you exploring when you're only having one combat encounter over an entire day?

This. Though in this case, if it's a table decision, I'd say it's also the fault of all the other players. Really, you decide to play the game in another way than it was balanced out on.

From the OP:

This is also compounded depending on the table your playing under. My table especially rarely does more then one combat between long rests. We tend to role-play and do things based on skills rather then hitting things, so when combat does happen it tends to be big epic or serving some purpose in the narrative because we picked the fight or it came about from actions made.

Of course you can do this. But you should realize that this puts classes that have 'can keep going all day' as their forte, and short rest based classes, on a massive disadvantage. This doesn't just make warlocks suck, but also monks, and makes fighters and rogues greatly inferior to a class like paladin.

This has nothing to do with the warlock. Let alone with the Hexblade warlock. Neither has it to do something with the system. You play it in a way that it wasn't designed, without using the variant rules that are there to accomodate that style of play.

Additionaly: it really should't be a problem for a DM to come up with challanges and non-combat encounters that require a party to spend recourses like spell slots. That should also compensate a bit, even when using the standard rules.

[Mister_Squinty]

The DM's job is to meta-game. It always has been.

And policing an adventuring day is not meta-gaming. Players spamming a five minute work day on the other hand, is meta-gaming.

And before you say the rules can't handle the game the OP is playing, consider that they can. If you open up your Dungeon Masters guide its right in there (different rest variants and so forth).

The problem the OP is having is with his Dungeon Master.

We evidently have a different definition of "meta-game". Mine would be along the lines of "compromising the narrative to exploit or accommodate game mechanics." Coffeelock is meta-game, demanding the DM play a certain number of short rests between each long rest is meta-game. Players blowing all of their resources in what is described as an "all or nothing" fight isn't meta-gaming, it's playing to the narrative set by the DM. The fights are set up as requiring all of their strength and power to overcome (at least that is the gist I am getting from the OP descriptions).

[LVOD]

I posted something similar to this a few months ago. My campaigns just never use short rests. I think its a clumsy mechanic that breaks the energy and forward momentum of the game.

“Before we slay the dragon, we should really take a quick nap.”

Other people seem to love it, and it does fill a nice niche to solve some issues pretty neartly, but I understand where you’re coming from.

[Aett_Thorn]

I don't have a problem with 5e in general. I have a problem with a single class, built along completely different lines than the rest of the classes, forcing the DM to play a very specific style of game to make that specific class viable.

5e can handle any style of game, it's a great framework. But PC Warlocks encourage/force the DM to budget for a number of short rests, lest the Warlock player run into the OP's issue. If the DM wants to run a race against the clock, where the PCs are desperately trying to accomplish their goals in a short number of days, the Warlock is going to feel underpowered. If the DM accommodates for that, the dramatic tension is lessened.

Throw in how Warlock multi-classing leads to giant wheels of cheese like "coffeelock", and it becomes increasingly clear the class doesn't play well with the rest of the system.

It's not just one class, though. Fighters (especially Battlemaster Fighters) and Monks also benefit from the same short-rest schedule as the Warlock. Wizards and Land Druids can also gain some spell slots back on short rests as well, so those classes should be pushing for a short rest every now and again, too.

Also, this isn't a direct reply to you, but I feel like people think that 5-6 encounters per day means 5-6 combats per day. It should just be 5-6 things that cause the party to use resources. Sure, combat will probably use up more of them, but anything that causes the spellcasters to go through some slots and make the characters not have them available for a fight later is fair game. Someone needs to fly over the gorge to get a rope over there? That's one less spell slot later on that could be a fireball.

[Waazraath]

5e can handle any style of game, it's a great framework. But PC Warlocks encourage/force the DM to budget for a number of short rests, lest the Warlock player run into the OP's issue. If the DM wants to run a race against the clock, where the PCs are desperately trying to accomplish their goals in a short number of days, the Warlock is going to feel underpowered. If the DM accommodates for that, the dramatic tension is lessened.

Does this really is about the warlock? In my experience, there always are (and have been in earlier editions) classes that are better suited for a 5 min adventuring day, and those that are better suited for situations where a party is forced to 'keep on going'. For me, as a DM I'd always consider it my job to not accomodate just a single style of play, that benefits only a few of the classes. So sometimes, there is only 1 combat a day. Sometimes, circumstances force a party to keep on going and going and going, til everybody is out of spell slots and the champion fighter, rogue and other characters with at will abilities get their chance to shine. And sometimes it's exactly the number of encouters suggested in the DMG. Sometimes there is opportunity for short rests, but not always. Everybody gets their chance to shine, and as a benefit, everybody needs to think about managing their rescourses.

There is quite some dramatic tension in having to continue the fight, even though some of the party is out of ammo.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

A great game system is one that makes it easy for a non-expert to achieve expected results consistently and simply.

The current rest rules make things harder for the GM, who now has to track something unrelated to game balance (adventure pacing) to achieve balance. Many reasonable ways to run and pace an extended campaign suddenly create class imbalance for no good reason that I can discern.

This is bad design.

Fortunately, there are a few simple rule changes that fix this particular issue:

1) A character gets two short rests per long rest.
2) He can declare a short rest between combats. This does not take time; it is more like catching one's breath, doing a quick stretch routine, uttering a mantra, whatever.
3) He can use a bonus action to take a short rest in combat.

There. Level playing field. Player empowerment. DMG-approved rest ratio.

I know of quite a few people who have adopted something like this, with good results.

Anyway,

Ken

[Mister_Squinty]

It's not just one class, though. Fighters (especially Battlemaster Fighters) and Monks also benefit from the same short-rest schedule as the Warlock. Wizards and Land Druids can also gain some spell slots back on short rests as well, so those classes should be pushing for a short rest every now and again, too.

To a degree, I agree. However, the Warlock is at the far end of that particular curve. Battlemasters are a subclass that benefits from short rests, but that subclass rests on the versatile and well-balanced Fighter chassis. Wizards and Druids have enough spell slots and abilities to be able to manage any kind of campaign. Warlocks are sprinters trying to compete in the Decathlon. They're good out of the gate, but, without DM accommodation, they can't compete in the rest of the events.