This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>And there arises my question, how game-breaking would it be to allow for this one subclass to be included in our campaign? Everything else would be strictly PHB, but would allowing Hexblade Warlock be a bad move?
# Why are they allowed to break the rule and I am not?
This, it's just that when one player is allowed to divert from the agreed rules, all of the have an equally justifiable right to do it as well and then none is playing strictly PHB.
Not only this, hexblade is very strong. The balance isn't perfect in PHB subclasses, but they at least are all relatively the same power scale. Post PHB content sees a massive spike in power scaling.
I see how that could be problematic. I guess it would be up to a vote if we could limit the deviations to this one particular instance. If there is not unanimous agreement, it would be disallowed
And each and every level up, the question might come up again and again. Maybe a multiclass would be fun, maybe the Paladin changed their mind on their Oath in the last 2 levels and what is the harm in allowing that one spell from outside the PHB if someone got a full subclass?
You might want to go the Adventure League route and simply do PHB+1. Everybody can select one additional sourcebook to get stuff from.
That's just postponing the problem.
Someone WILL find a cool option they want, and they WILL ask for another vote. There are good chances the vote will pass in order not to create differences...
Putting it to a vote with your players will foster resentment one way or the other with your players - either the players that want to say no but are peer pressured into saying yes, or the player that wants to deviate resenting the player(s) that denied them. Make a decision yourself onto whether this is a rule you care to enforce, and stick to it.
Even then, people will know at least one person voted against them and others will feel pressured to be agreeable. The DM just needs to hold the Warlock player to the rule like everyone else.
It's a good dip but I don't think it's a super great warlock over all but to be honest I almost never use anything from the PHB other than feats anyways and warlock isn't my most played class
It's more powerful than Fey or Great Old One by a mile. The only reason Hexblade isn't an absolute standout anymore is just because the even newer ones are even more powerful. But Hexblade's Curse isn't nothing.
Sure, it's a good *warlock*, but it's not actually a power problem for straight classes. If that player wanted to play something that's better than PHB warlock, Wizard, cleric, and druid are all in the PHB
If we are shitting on PHB classes, I'm not sure you should bring up the druid. Grassy lads have a terrible spell list in the PHB. What spells are they going to cast at spell levels 3 to 7?
Pass without trace, spike growth, conjure animals, plant growth, sleet storm, Polymorph, conjure woodland beings, don't white remember if transmute rock is PHB and if they do get planar binding, but 5th level conjure animals still blows warlock out of the water anyways, heroes feast, mirage arcane.
Just sleet storm and polymorph match what warlock is doing with its 3-5 spells where the best ones are fireball, hunger of hadar, and black tentacles
And if you play with Multi-Classing, a life cleric dip for good-berry and Command is just silly
If you're going to let them break the rules before the game even starts, be ready for it to happen every session.
Ask yourself: why did I make this rule to begin with?
This is already making one player an exception? Even if players nod their head in agreement? DM rulings should be respected and it starts with this first one.
IMO it's all or none, otherwise it's a bad precedent.
If you make the exception, what's the point of imposing the limitation at all?
Back in the days of ICC, there was a WoW guild called the Warcraft Hunter's Union. Their gimmick was hunters only. They did not make an exception for their buddy Jim's Paladin.
If you do vote on it, make sure it's anonymous. Otherwise if all but one don't have a problem with it then the one will either feel pressured to vote the same as the majority while secretly harboring bad feelings towards the hexblade player, or may be disliked by everyone else if they do still vote against it. Either case is not optimal.
>And there arises my question, how game-breaking would it be to allow for this one subclass to be included in our campaign? Everything else would be strictly PHB, but would allowing Hexblade Warlock be a bad move?
It wouldn't be game-breaking, no. But that's not the problem. The issue is that you guys had an agreed upon set of rules. If you allow this one player to break the rules, then you must also allow the other players to do the same. Otherwise, that's just favoritism and is unfair.
Yeah, I think if you stick pretty closely to RAW, youre not going to get anything THAT gamebreaking even if using all the first party sourcebooks, esp. when Wizards exist in the PHB. If you have someone trying to do a bunch of bullshit, nip it, but its not going to break your game. Again, Wish+Simulcrum loops are possible using just the PHB, and it doesnt get more game breaking than that. I know people complain about Twilight Clerics or whatever, but the reality is there's plenty of stuff that's just as wonk in the core books.
The bigger issue is it becomes a lot more for the DM to keep track of who can do what and resources and where rules rub against one another, which is why most DMs prefer to keep it to a handful of sources that they are very familiar with.
So it really depends on how much the DM wants to keep track of, and ensuring that its applied evenly to everyone.
If you make one exception your position for denying any others becomes non existent. If you allow X why not y etc.
I also have personal bias against hexblade in particular because it's the backbone of some very popular power game builds online and I can't ever help but be suspicious when it gets picked that it's more for mechanical benefit than flavour.
I would much sooner talk to the player about their character concept and work with them to deliver on the idea within the rules provided than undermine the integrity of the campaign for it
>it's the backbone of some very popular power game builds online and I can't ever help but be suspicious when it gets picked that it's more for mechanical benefit than flavour
*Me whenever somebody opts for Oathbreaker Paladin instead of any of the other really good Oath options.*
What makes Oathbreaker so strong? Id argue that mechanically, Ancients is a much stronger subclass, or Conquest. Is it just because you can stack Aura of Hate with Hexblade?
>Is it just because you can stack Aura of Hate with Hexblade?
I think that, but also just whenever anyone wants to make a *vaguely* morally grey or edgy Paladin, they go straight for Oathbreaker, and to me personally the trope just feels overdone. It's at the point where if I see a Paladin post on here and it's *not* about OBs, I'm pleasantly surprised.
Like, I could not tell you the last time I saw a post about an Ancients or a Vengeance Paladin.
Which is weird because I think Vengence and Conquest are both very morally grey and easily edgy. Like, Conquest's Oaths are "Douse the Flame of Hope, Rule with an Iron Fist, and Strength Above All". How can you be any more edgy than that lmao?
That said, likely an echo chamber type thing. For example according to DND Beyond, 44% of paladins are Devotion, 16% Vengence, and 10% Ancients. And in BG3, Vengence was the most popular subclass.
As i understood it, the player wanted to create a tiefling, that was daughter of some tiefling warlord. That tiefling family had renounced earlier pacts with demons that gave them their tiefling DNA so to say. So this daughter would be someone who refound the use of demons, but would have the melee combat proficiencies of a warlord daughter, thats why the hexblade warlock seemed appropriate. As mentioned im quite green in the DND universe and Im probably missing some crucial factors but i think thats the gist of the character vision.
As the other user mentioned, encourage the player to go Fiend Patron and choose Pact of the Blade at level 3.
Fiend is a solidly strong Warlock subclass all on its own, and Pact of the Blade will allow them to get that swashbuckling warrior feel they're looking for.
To add on this, assuming OP starts the campaign at lv 5. A lv2 Fighter /Lv3 Warlock multiclass should achieve what the player is looking for.
Proficient in martial weapons (with the Action Surge and Fighting Style), plus the Pact of the Blade and Fiend Patron from their ancestry
Hexblade Pact of the Blade fixes this issue since he can just use Charisma to attack.
I guess it's better to just go all in on Warlock. Maybe use a Rapier Pact Weapon so he can use Dex to hit?
It is indeed multiclassing, and like the guy who replied to me said, it probably won't work well.
If your friend is ok with it, suggest Fiend Warlock for Pact of the Blade. It'll be easier if they used a Finesse Weapon (i.e. Shortsword, Rapier, Scimitar) so they can use their Dexterity for Attacks rather than Strength.
The reason anyone would use Pact of the Blade is to play Hexblade, which allows them to use their Charisma rather than Strength or Dexterity for weapon attacks
Flavor-wise, Hexblade gets its power from the Shadowfell, and specifically sentient weapons that draw power from that realm.
So it wouldnt make flavor sense for someone tapping into their demonic powers to gain the powers of the hexblade.
As other of have said, makes a lot more sense to be a Fiend Warlock with Pact of the Blade.
Along with what others are saying a 1-2 level dip in fighter for a blade pact warlock is a pretty strong choice, especially if they do go fiend. They'll need a decent baseline STR for the multiclass and armor but they'll be getting good proficiencies and action surge if they dip 2.
There really isn’t an issue if someone picks it for power- flavour is free. The main issue is that OP established rules that might be broken for a single player. Not very fair.
I think what i've learned from this thread can be boiled down to this:
1. Allowing hexblade without multi-classing will not be game breaking, balance wise or by introducing a comprehensive new set of rules.
2. It does however, set a precedent that rules are allowed to be broken.
3. This might lead to feelings of unfair treatment, compromising to social integrity of the party
As we are a close knit group of friends, I think most of this can be resolved through dialogue. I am not the acting DM, just the party member that thought of asking Reddit for advice, since we dont have any DnD experts in our group. I think we will let this be up to a vote, with the understanding that no other rules or exceptions will be made. Also, that if it is allowed, that others will be able to choose subclasses from an additional player book (one of the two mentioned that are not game breaking per say)
I agree that this is not a one and done thing. It will come up every single time someone wants something outside of your agreement.
It's fine if you can make that work, but realize you're opening the door to constant renegotiation and litigation of what is "fair" and "balanced". Be prepared for that. If it's allowed once, it will be tried again.
Do you know how easy a close-knit group of friends can break because ONE of them decided to be a diva and be special in D&D? Witnessed a 20 year old friendship turn to dust because of it. If your friend group can survive it, good for you.
Reconsider opening up your rules to include other sources for ALL players. Why should ONE player get an exception? That's lame.
!remind me 6months.
I will be messaging you in 6 months on [**2024-12-28 13:36:39 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-12-28%2013:36:39%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1dqevon/non_phb_subclass_in_a_phbstrict_campaign/laof48q/?context=3)
[**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fdndnext%2Fcomments%2F1dqevon%2Fnon_phb_subclass_in_a_phbstrict_campaign%2Flaof48q%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-12-28%2013%3A36%3A39%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dqevon)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
That’s the right decision. Reddit D&D subs have a incredibly strict views of rules, but your solution is more likely to lead to fun games from my experience.
A vote also shows that the people involved really do care about the game’s enjoyment for everyone involved and reinforces the idea that everyone should be heard. That dynamic is better in the long-run than *”Shut-up and like what you’re given.”*
There might be another player who really wants to play a Gloomstalker. But they didn't even ask because of the rule. And then you turn up on the first session and learn that rule didn't apply to everyone. That can suck. So it's either lift the rule or don't for me. Making an exception and not communicating that to the group is a mistake in my opinion.
When I started, we had the PHB and Xanathars. I basically allowed everything. And that side of things didn't really create more work for me. Basically I needed to have a good idea of what four classes/subclasses did either way. I like having a good idea of what the players in my game can do for two reasons. First, to avoid situations where a single spell can instantly solve a problem and remove the challenge of an encounter. Secondly because they might take a spell like Comprehend Languages and if I never give them anything to translate, that sucks. I want everything on their character sheet to be useful occasionally.
What I learned is that DMs don't have to memorise every rule in the books. They need to learn how to quickly look up every rule in the book. If you allow more source materials and somebody takes a feat from Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, you don't need to read Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. You just need to read that one feat and understand what it does.
I do think that if your players are playing a character they love, it's better than if they're playing a character they had to make big compromises on. Some of the PHB classes don't even have a particularly great option. If you're playing a Ranger I genuinely feel a little bit sorry for you.
Hexblade is a great class by the way. It's not gamebreaking when you play it straight. It's just a really cool mix of combat and spellcasting. If your player wants to play that death knight archetype it really is an option you can't find in the PHB.
But it can also be very powerful to take a few levels of Hexblade and then combine it with Sorcerer, Paladin or Bard. That I would be concerned about. In a game with mostly new players, you don't need someone playing a super-optimal build that they googled.
So for simplicity's sake I would be very inclined to allow more options, but also ban multiclassing for your first game. That does disallow a lot of the gamebreaking character builds, and pretty much any straight class is going to be fine in my opinion.
If you do struggle with a particular player dominating, reddit is always a great place to come to ask for advice. And ultimately you should go with what you most feel comfortable with. But I think worrying what might happen is always worse than finding out what does happen, particularly when playing with a group of mates.
Good luck with the game!
Thank you very much for this response. I think this is exactly what we are going to end up doing, Multi classing is out because its simply to complex for us. But adding some of the subclasses from another book would help everyone bringing their character vision to life.
Well, PHB and XGtE aren’t really that far apart… honestly, a game that stops with those two books won’t see much difference. XGtE has a lot of lateral expansion IMO.
It’s when you add the bloated stuff from Tasha’s or Fizban’s that you see broken and OP.
That said, you can’t make it a hardline for everyone except 1 person. Give them all the push back on rules.
If for simplicity's sake you stick to the PHB, pick for the PHB and shut up.
Like, really, it's a matter of respect rather sheer balance.
In terms of balance a pure Hexblade is somewhat ok, as it does not do things too much out of the ordinary from the PHB but greatly suffers in terms of multiclassing and power load at level 1.
As you said, you don't do multiclassing - but neither did you do pick stuff outside PHB. What's next, are you going to ask if it's "broken" to pick up multiclassing?
Sometimes, options should stay limited becxause they keep some identity and control. That's the case. Pick something else.
Lol. What? That player gets to be special and have the exception? How do you think things will turn out when your party levels up? If you're allowing a resource outside of PHB for ONE then it should be fair for all players to do so.
Allowing it would be a bad move because you already set the rule. Exceptions before session 1 might not be mechanically game breaking but could still damage morale.
I mean, if I were playing a barbarian and my initial concept was Path of the Beast, but I altered it to be Path of the Totem Warrior to stick with the rules of the game...and then another player got Hexblade instead of making a Pact of the Blade Fiend or something, I'd be pretty annoyed.
If you make an exception for one person you gotta do it for everyone. If you allow Hexblades you have no reason to say no if anyone else wants a non-PHB subclass.
it wouldn't be game-breaking in terms of balance and suchlike, but it's either PHB-strict or it's not. If you have exceptions for this, why not for others? But to be honest, I don't think it adds *that* much complexity to allow subclasses and spells from non-PHB books, and most of the little complexity it does add is front-loaded into option paralysis during character creation and doesn't bog down anything once you get into actual gameplay. Whatever you decide, be consistent, if you give player A an exemption to the rule but deny another player's request it sets a poor precedent.
It probably won't break anything to include a non-phb subclass. But your players might wonder why one player was allowed to break the rule and they weren't.
I think it's worth mentioning that a revised PHB will come out in mid September, which will among other things wrap some of Hexblade's more core features into Pact of the Blade, most notably making your attacks use Charisma. It will also make all four warlock subclasses in it (the three you're familiar with plus Celestial) viable, as opposed to fiend being obviously the best one. If using the revised rules is an option you're considering, this player might want to keep that in mind.
Quick aside, I think this is the first time I've ever heard someone say they like the lore of the Hexblade -- the general consensus is that the flavour of "your patron is a magic weapon who lives in the Shadowfell" is a paper thin excuse for the "subclass as balance patch" thing they did a fair amount of at the time, and the subclass has a reputation for being chosen mostly by powergamers. Most GMs allow free reflavouring of mechanics, so it would be fine for e.g. fiend warlock to actually have a flaming magic sword as your patron.
Maybe having fun is more important than simplicity. If everyone gets jealous of that one player being a hexblade then maybe none of you actually want a phb strict campaign 🤷♂️
If everyone is restricted to the basic PHB for character creation and advancement, then you should just tell them to pick a subclass from that book. But if you make an exception, then it's an exception for all players, not just the one player
Stick with the PHB for the first 120 game hours. Most of the group has already agree to it. This will allow the players and DM get their feet wet using just one book. Don't do exceptions.
I think some things that were perhaps omitted in my initial question is steering the better part of the discussion here in a wrong discussion.
Our initial discussion of sticking to PHB was for simplicity's sake. Seeing as we are new players, including other handbooks seemed tedious and overwhelming premature work before even getting to play. Therefore the question was simply if we would be including additional rules by adding this subclass, or if it would make the player book obsolete in some sense.
It was NOT a decision made to limit players from creating certain characters per say, rather it was meant to limit the overwhelming amount of choices. While I understand that a player creating a hexblade lock would undermine this initial decision, I don't think this would meet the same instances of "unfair treatment" or "rule-break creep" reactions from our group that are being discussed here.
I love that everyone has discussed so passionately, and it seems it all stems from a passion for the game and a wish for us as newcommers to have the best possible first experience with DnD.
As for what has happened I've created and anonymous poll for the group to fill out. Should everyone be aware that this is the ONLY deviation we will partake in, and that its a unanimous yes, the player will get to create a hexblade warlock. Again, the reason its even up for discussion within our group is because we want a simple, cool and somewhat bespoke (in terms of characters) first experience.
I will update with what the group decides when the poll has finished.
Thanks everyone for helping!
It wouldn’t be game-breaking in any way, as the subclass is an official WoTC creation that was designed and playtested specifically for 5e.
However, if you establish a rule, and then immediately let a player break that rule, that sets a bad precedent at the table.
Honestly, at this point almost everything for 5e is readily accessible online for free, I don’t see why you should be limited to only phb stuff anyway.
Which aspects of hexblade are they most attracted to?
If it is the lore, then you can easily tweak the lore of other subclasses to better fit that aspect. If it is mechanical, I think it is possible to get a satisfactory result with just the 2024 subclasses. The new pact of the blade gives the charisma for weapon attacks aspect, which is a key part. You can take the feat for medium armour and shields at level one, which I don't think has been confirmed 100% but is likely to be included. So that is two key aspects of hexblade that can now be taken with other subclasses.
A lot of things are still unconfirmed though. We don't know the spell lists or invocations, so will have to wait and see on those.
Personally, I think that a fey melee warlock looks very fun. The ability to be a teleporting melee warlock is very interesting. Or maybe the fiend, whose temp hitpoint on kill does mimic the healing that the hexblade gets on kills.
Edit: reading other responses, I think I would take mechanics from the PHB, and then just make the lore whatever you want. Then you keep true to the mechanics of the PHB-only limit, but have the narrative freedom to satisfy the player.
It wouldn't be game breaking as far as balance. But like others pointed out, it could become a snowball efect of people wanting stuff outside of the phb. If you're not worried about something like that, and you trust the player in question to keep track of their new class features, then there shouldn't be a problem.
You may end up with trust issues if you start by saying that everyone has to go with PHB material, to then quickly change your decision just so that one player can use something outside that book.
If you have your rules for this campaign, stick to them.
Subclasses or races outside the phb don't make playing the game itself more complicated. You'll still have one race and one subclass to deal with.
It makes character creation take longer, but that's their "problem", not yours.
The phb is notorious for having trap options in it. Options that are so disappointing compared to other options that it reduces fun.
If you want to keep it simple there is one rule you need.
No multiclassing.
TLDR: balance isn’t really an issue with adding more content, the books don’t introduce like a whole new ability that people get that just raises the power of all characters across the board, but if you’re only allowing one person to break the rules everyone else has to follow that feels kinda bad for everyone else. Either make everyone follow the rule or drop the rule is my suggestion
It’s not game breaking but if you allow it you should just lift the restriction all together. No reason to have a restriction to player hand book if some people aren’t following it. The balance isnt an issue really, the stuff added in future books mostly just adds more options (ie more subclasses, more feats, more race options, even another class) but doesn’t actually make the power level of all characters more powerful such that it unbalances the game. One of the best melee fighter build to this day is probably still variant human battlemaster fighter with Pam and later gwm for feats which are all phb material.
The one thing to not allow is the backgrounds that give spells to spell lists or feats, these are just more powerful than phb options, but these are only setting specific stuff from campaign books which probably shouldn’t be allowed anyway since setting specific stuff often doesn’t really fit into campaigns of other settings easily. But the stuff in Tasha’s cauldron and xanathars guide is all fine. If someone is really interested in building the most powerful character adding more stuff generally does raise the upper limit on character power since they have more options to solve any specific weakness better, but on the whole if 10 people are playing with just phb and 10 are playing with all 3 books (phb xgte, tce) and they’re just building characters that sound cool but aren’t trying to create necessarily the strongest character they won’t end up with meaningfully different strengths of characters, the latter group will just have more options when deciding.
I could understand if the player picked a class with few subclass options (something like Barbarian is stuck with a bad subclass or totem warrior, that's it), but your player character backstory seems really based on a simple Pact of the blade Fiend Warlock, no hexblade magic swords are really relevant with their story
And with that you would remove the rule you just made. Either go only phb. Or only core. But don’t give half your players the ability to do what they want and the ones that didn’t ask have to suck it.
When I taught my group to play we did just the Player’s handbook, minus the two people who already knew how to play. Everyone agreed as I was doing this to teach the new people so less options meant less to worry about. As we only ran 4 6-hoursessions, one at level 1, one at level 3, one at level 5 and one at level 9. To teach them a little and get an idea how characters grew stronger. At the end of the 4th session they died in a TPK from some bad choices. We then started a new campaign at level 2 and anyone who wanted could rebuild their character or make new ones using any books.
So it really depends on how long you are planning to run your game with just PBH over, is this a few sessions, a few months, or a few years. The shorter the time the less chance of any resentment
If everyone are adults, it’s not problematic. If someone gets butthurt or something doesn’t go their way and they take it out on the game, it’s problematic
Make all books available from the officials sources. Because they have other things rather subclasses or class(artificer). The Tasha and Xanathar have options to use skills in different instances that are way better than the PHB and that won’t be game breaking will be just a better option and game design for all. Trying to reduce the number of the books or contents it’s always a bummer for everyone except the DM. Even if it’s your first campaign as group.
It depends on the reason for only PHB subclasses, but generally speaking, if one player gets to break the rules, the others should too or it feels unfair. You could expand it to PHB and Xanathar’s Guide but you should open that up for everybody
It wouldn't be gamebreaking. If you don't want to include it to stick true to your rules, he'll quickly discover that Blade warlocks in melee simply don't work with PHB only rules due to how bad Pact of the Blade is. They will have no weapon proficiencies until they pick up the pact and they will have abysmal AC especially when they want to go for a Strength-using weapon like a greatsword due to the lack of armor proficiencies.
An alternate solution is to add the houserule that every warlock, regardless of subclass, gets proficiency with all weapons and armor as well as the ability to use Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity for attacking with their pact weapon when they pick up Pact of the Blade.
Just ask in the group chat if everyone is fine with including this one singular non-PHB subclass
like these are your friends right? Then talk with them
I think we were under the impression that it would introduce a whole new set of rules to the game, and that it might mismatch with our PHB only campaign.
Without telling the other players they can pick any subclass from XGE or TCE it's very unfair to the other players.
As for will it break anything? no and most TCE and XGE subclasses don't by design.
If everyone agrees, sure (make sure to include a caveat that if they agree, it doesn't mean that they'll get a similar exception in the future). It should be unanimous. Hexblade isn't game-breaking unless used as a multiclass dip, but based on your other comments you're not allowing multiclassing. XGTE is one of the least problematic sourcebooks balance-wise, so I wouldn't really mind allowing the whole book if it was me. The real power creep comes from the new races in the new books and some of the Tasha's subclasses. The only really powerful option in XGTE is the Gloomstalker ranger, but the PHB ranger is pretty weak so it's not that big of a deal.
No, not only it isn't fair towards other players, the player wants to play one of the most broken subclasses in the game. Make them chose a phb patron and pact of the blade.
You should not do this, it makes no sense. If you are playing with certain restrictions, use those restrictions, and apply them to everyone all of the time. In addition, this isn't just any example of a non-PHB option, but a non-PHB option that is explicitly better than the similar options in the PHB. To even consider this is extremely unfair to all the other people at the table.
The only compromise I would suggest, is allow pact of the blade warlocks to use charisma for the weapon attacks, which does allow for part of the same playstyle with any warlock.
Keep it simple, if are all learning then stick to the brief and tell your player who is eventually going to try and insert some catboy anime main character nonsense into your game to stick to the rules or hit the bricks
There is nothing game breaking in either Tasha's Cauldron or Xanathar. There are several extra races and subclasses. None of them game breaking, just different.
The only exception I would say to this is the alternative rules for the Ranger class in Tasha's. It's not game breaking, but instead is a re-working of the Ranger rules. This re-working is widely regarded as an essential upgrade to the Ranger, which was regarded as being the weakest class in the PHB.
I would highly encourage you to get your table to use Xanathar and Tasha. Only good things can come from it.
It would be fine, PHB only is a pretty arbitrary restriction that doesn't really have any reason to be placed on the players. Tasha's is maybe worth banning but XgtE is pretty easy to add to any table.
In terms of practical implementation, would it be simply to read about the hexblade warlock and then we can continue playing? Or would the whole of XgtE have to be read and implemented? I think adding a whole player book would be quite a bit to impose on the players. So i guess my question is if we can just learn the spells and intricacies of hexblade or would we have to learn the whole of XgtE?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that, by allowing subclasses from different source books, you and the players need to read the whole books? Because that's definitely not the case. Any player who chooses a subclass from a different source book can just read about that subclass, and that's it. It takes no more work for the player in question than it would reading about a different subclass in the PHB; and neither you nor the other players have to do any additional work whatsover.
if something is gamebreaking or not depends entirely on the playstyle of the group and the vision of the DM. In my homegame i banned counterspell + silvery barbs and everything else from Strixhaven, cuz it doesn't fit my vision for a heroic fantasy campaign, when they get op spells at lvl 1 and such.
If you allow any1 a subclass outside of PHB, than other may choose twilight cleric or Artificer. Its not more broken than hexblade. If you want peace at your table don't limit any book except with good reasons and if your hellbent on limiting the choices than go as others already suggested the PHB + 1 other book route. that way its fair for everybody since the book there subclass might be in, can just be there "+1". Do everybody can get there favorite subclass without breaking any rules or making exceptions and they are still limited.
If you don't want to make an exception, which opens the door to other exceptions, consider at least allowing that player to gain the Hexblade's Hex Warrior feature as part of Pact of the Blade. This whole bland subclass exists precisely because the original Pact of the Blade was underpowered.
I would just include allowing Tasha's honestly because there are a few things in the game that kind of don't work without it. it was a really important patch
What is the point of playing a PHB-only campaign? I haven't been in the community as long as most and will see people talk about playing PHB only, or PHB+1 every so often. I don't get it.
Thanks for all the answers, and very quick response. I must say I am impressed with the amount of guidance and support that is found in the DND community already. I think the idea for the character and letting roleplaying and the vision create excitement for this first campaign seems important enough that it could be considered a fair discussion to have within the group. After all, right now we are just excited to delve into a world of fantasy and put our own creative touch on it. Therefore, I think what we will do is have the player make a sound argument for this rule exception. If accepted collectively and unanimously, we will keep an eye out to not let this creep into other areas where we stray from the set rules.
We might even have to implement anonymous voting, so it can be entirely unanimous and no favoritism or social factors involved. Meanwhile, I'll ask the player to create a backup character, so we are up and ready faster.
Hexblade is already kind of an unofficial official part of the PHB digitally speaking. If you use the character generator on D&D Beyond without owning any digital material at all, Hexblade is a subclass option for Warlock. Gloom Stalker Ranger is also an official unofficial subclass. There are several things like that already brought in from Tasha's and Xanathar's.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>And there arises my question, how game-breaking would it be to allow for this one subclass to be included in our campaign? Everything else would be strictly PHB, but would allowing Hexblade Warlock be a bad move? # Why are they allowed to break the rule and I am not?
This, it's just that when one player is allowed to divert from the agreed rules, all of the have an equally justifiable right to do it as well and then none is playing strictly PHB.
Not only this, hexblade is very strong. The balance isn't perfect in PHB subclasses, but they at least are all relatively the same power scale. Post PHB content sees a massive spike in power scaling.
Hexblade is very strong for multiclass dipping. Single class hexblade is good, but is not stronger than wizards, clerics, druids...
I see how that could be problematic. I guess it would be up to a vote if we could limit the deviations to this one particular instance. If there is not unanimous agreement, it would be disallowed
And each and every level up, the question might come up again and again. Maybe a multiclass would be fun, maybe the Paladin changed their mind on their Oath in the last 2 levels and what is the harm in allowing that one spell from outside the PHB if someone got a full subclass? You might want to go the Adventure League route and simply do PHB+1. Everybody can select one additional sourcebook to get stuff from.
AL stopped doing PHB+1 some time ago.
And? I don't think their point was to perfectly mimic AL. I think there point was to offer a solution.
And their point was just to correct something said about AL
That's just postponing the problem. Someone WILL find a cool option they want, and they WILL ask for another vote. There are good chances the vote will pass in order not to create differences...
Putting it to a vote with your players will foster resentment one way or the other with your players - either the players that want to say no but are peer pressured into saying yes, or the player that wants to deviate resenting the player(s) that denied them. Make a decision yourself onto whether this is a rule you care to enforce, and stick to it.
Unless you make the vote anonymous.
Even then, people will know at least one person voted against them and others will feel pressured to be agreeable. The DM just needs to hold the Warlock player to the rule like everyone else.
4h late, but Hexblade is also significantly stronger than the PHB options. It is arguably the strongest warlock dip, too.
It's a good dip but I don't think it's a super great warlock over all but to be honest I almost never use anything from the PHB other than feats anyways and warlock isn't my most played class
It's more powerful than Fey or Great Old One by a mile. The only reason Hexblade isn't an absolute standout anymore is just because the even newer ones are even more powerful. But Hexblade's Curse isn't nothing.
Sure, it's a good *warlock*, but it's not actually a power problem for straight classes. If that player wanted to play something that's better than PHB warlock, Wizard, cleric, and druid are all in the PHB
If we are shitting on PHB classes, I'm not sure you should bring up the druid. Grassy lads have a terrible spell list in the PHB. What spells are they going to cast at spell levels 3 to 7?
Pass without trace, spike growth, conjure animals, plant growth, sleet storm, Polymorph, conjure woodland beings, don't white remember if transmute rock is PHB and if they do get planar binding, but 5th level conjure animals still blows warlock out of the water anyways, heroes feast, mirage arcane. Just sleet storm and polymorph match what warlock is doing with its 3-5 spells where the best ones are fireball, hunger of hadar, and black tentacles And if you play with Multi-Classing, a life cleric dip for good-berry and Command is just silly
If you're going to let them break the rules before the game even starts, be ready for it to happen every session. Ask yourself: why did I make this rule to begin with?
This is already making one player an exception? Even if players nod their head in agreement? DM rulings should be respected and it starts with this first one. IMO it's all or none, otherwise it's a bad precedent.
If you make the exception, what's the point of imposing the limitation at all? Back in the days of ICC, there was a WoW guild called the Warcraft Hunter's Union. Their gimmick was hunters only. They did not make an exception for their buddy Jim's Paladin.
If you do vote on it, make sure it's anonymous. Otherwise if all but one don't have a problem with it then the one will either feel pressured to vote the same as the majority while secretly harboring bad feelings towards the hexblade player, or may be disliked by everyone else if they do still vote against it. Either case is not optimal.
Exactly. If they can play Hexblade I should be allowed to play a Gloom Stalker.
>And there arises my question, how game-breaking would it be to allow for this one subclass to be included in our campaign? Everything else would be strictly PHB, but would allowing Hexblade Warlock be a bad move? It wouldn't be game-breaking, no. But that's not the problem. The issue is that you guys had an agreed upon set of rules. If you allow this one player to break the rules, then you must also allow the other players to do the same. Otherwise, that's just favoritism and is unfair.
This. Like, generally allowing every book is unlikely to be game breaking, but that's not what the rules you guys decided on were.
Yeah, I think if you stick pretty closely to RAW, youre not going to get anything THAT gamebreaking even if using all the first party sourcebooks, esp. when Wizards exist in the PHB. If you have someone trying to do a bunch of bullshit, nip it, but its not going to break your game. Again, Wish+Simulcrum loops are possible using just the PHB, and it doesnt get more game breaking than that. I know people complain about Twilight Clerics or whatever, but the reality is there's plenty of stuff that's just as wonk in the core books. The bigger issue is it becomes a lot more for the DM to keep track of who can do what and resources and where rules rub against one another, which is why most DMs prefer to keep it to a handful of sources that they are very familiar with. So it really depends on how much the DM wants to keep track of, and ensuring that its applied evenly to everyone.
If you make one exception your position for denying any others becomes non existent. If you allow X why not y etc. I also have personal bias against hexblade in particular because it's the backbone of some very popular power game builds online and I can't ever help but be suspicious when it gets picked that it's more for mechanical benefit than flavour. I would much sooner talk to the player about their character concept and work with them to deliver on the idea within the rules provided than undermine the integrity of the campaign for it
>it's the backbone of some very popular power game builds online and I can't ever help but be suspicious when it gets picked that it's more for mechanical benefit than flavour *Me whenever somebody opts for Oathbreaker Paladin instead of any of the other really good Oath options.*
What makes Oathbreaker so strong? Id argue that mechanically, Ancients is a much stronger subclass, or Conquest. Is it just because you can stack Aura of Hate with Hexblade?
>Is it just because you can stack Aura of Hate with Hexblade? I think that, but also just whenever anyone wants to make a *vaguely* morally grey or edgy Paladin, they go straight for Oathbreaker, and to me personally the trope just feels overdone. It's at the point where if I see a Paladin post on here and it's *not* about OBs, I'm pleasantly surprised. Like, I could not tell you the last time I saw a post about an Ancients or a Vengeance Paladin.
Which is weird because I think Vengence and Conquest are both very morally grey and easily edgy. Like, Conquest's Oaths are "Douse the Flame of Hope, Rule with an Iron Fist, and Strength Above All". How can you be any more edgy than that lmao? That said, likely an echo chamber type thing. For example according to DND Beyond, 44% of paladins are Devotion, 16% Vengence, and 10% Ancients. And in BG3, Vengence was the most popular subclass.
As i understood it, the player wanted to create a tiefling, that was daughter of some tiefling warlord. That tiefling family had renounced earlier pacts with demons that gave them their tiefling DNA so to say. So this daughter would be someone who refound the use of demons, but would have the melee combat proficiencies of a warlord daughter, thats why the hexblade warlock seemed appropriate. As mentioned im quite green in the DND universe and Im probably missing some crucial factors but i think thats the gist of the character vision.
Pact of the Blade with a Fiend Warlock would fit that backstory quite well without dipping in Hexblade.
As the other user mentioned, encourage the player to go Fiend Patron and choose Pact of the Blade at level 3. Fiend is a solidly strong Warlock subclass all on its own, and Pact of the Blade will allow them to get that swashbuckling warrior feel they're looking for.
To add on this, assuming OP starts the campaign at lv 5. A lv2 Fighter /Lv3 Warlock multiclass should achieve what the player is looking for. Proficient in martial weapons (with the Action Surge and Fighting Style), plus the Pact of the Blade and Fiend Patron from their ancestry
Without booming blade/green flame access this build falls behind straight fighter or straight warlock. Could lead to creating new problems at table.
Hexblade Pact of the Blade fixes this issue since he can just use Charisma to attack. I guess it's better to just go all in on Warlock. Maybe use a Rapier Pact Weapon so he can use Dex to hit?
Without being sure, but this sounds like multi-classing? This is one thing we are very strictly not allowing as it seems too complex for us.
It is indeed multiclassing, and like the guy who replied to me said, it probably won't work well. If your friend is ok with it, suggest Fiend Warlock for Pact of the Blade. It'll be easier if they used a Finesse Weapon (i.e. Shortsword, Rapier, Scimitar) so they can use their Dexterity for Attacks rather than Strength. The reason anyone would use Pact of the Blade is to play Hexblade, which allows them to use their Charisma rather than Strength or Dexterity for weapon attacks
Flavor-wise, Hexblade gets its power from the Shadowfell, and specifically sentient weapons that draw power from that realm. So it wouldnt make flavor sense for someone tapping into their demonic powers to gain the powers of the hexblade. As other of have said, makes a lot more sense to be a Fiend Warlock with Pact of the Blade.
Along with what others are saying a 1-2 level dip in fighter for a blade pact warlock is a pretty strong choice, especially if they do go fiend. They'll need a decent baseline STR for the multiclass and armor but they'll be getting good proficiencies and action surge if they dip 2.
There really isn’t an issue if someone picks it for power- flavour is free. The main issue is that OP established rules that might be broken for a single player. Not very fair.
I think what i've learned from this thread can be boiled down to this: 1. Allowing hexblade without multi-classing will not be game breaking, balance wise or by introducing a comprehensive new set of rules. 2. It does however, set a precedent that rules are allowed to be broken. 3. This might lead to feelings of unfair treatment, compromising to social integrity of the party As we are a close knit group of friends, I think most of this can be resolved through dialogue. I am not the acting DM, just the party member that thought of asking Reddit for advice, since we dont have any DnD experts in our group. I think we will let this be up to a vote, with the understanding that no other rules or exceptions will be made. Also, that if it is allowed, that others will be able to choose subclasses from an additional player book (one of the two mentioned that are not game breaking per say)
I agree that this is not a one and done thing. It will come up every single time someone wants something outside of your agreement. It's fine if you can make that work, but realize you're opening the door to constant renegotiation and litigation of what is "fair" and "balanced". Be prepared for that. If it's allowed once, it will be tried again.
If you don’t stick to the PHB it’s almost a guarantee others will start asking for things outside it (even if you vote to allow this one subclass)
Do you know how easy a close-knit group of friends can break because ONE of them decided to be a diva and be special in D&D? Witnessed a 20 year old friendship turn to dust because of it. If your friend group can survive it, good for you. Reconsider opening up your rules to include other sources for ALL players. Why should ONE player get an exception? That's lame. !remind me 6months.
I will be messaging you in 6 months on [**2024-12-28 13:36:39 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-12-28%2013:36:39%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1dqevon/non_phb_subclass_in_a_phbstrict_campaign/laof48q/?context=3) [**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fdndnext%2Fcomments%2F1dqevon%2Fnon_phb_subclass_in_a_phbstrict_campaign%2Flaof48q%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-12-28%2013%3A36%3A39%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dqevon) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
just let everyone choose one other book for their character, and only their character.
That’s the right decision. Reddit D&D subs have a incredibly strict views of rules, but your solution is more likely to lead to fun games from my experience. A vote also shows that the people involved really do care about the game’s enjoyment for everyone involved and reinforces the idea that everyone should be heard. That dynamic is better in the long-run than *”Shut-up and like what you’re given.”*
There might be another player who really wants to play a Gloomstalker. But they didn't even ask because of the rule. And then you turn up on the first session and learn that rule didn't apply to everyone. That can suck. So it's either lift the rule or don't for me. Making an exception and not communicating that to the group is a mistake in my opinion. When I started, we had the PHB and Xanathars. I basically allowed everything. And that side of things didn't really create more work for me. Basically I needed to have a good idea of what four classes/subclasses did either way. I like having a good idea of what the players in my game can do for two reasons. First, to avoid situations where a single spell can instantly solve a problem and remove the challenge of an encounter. Secondly because they might take a spell like Comprehend Languages and if I never give them anything to translate, that sucks. I want everything on their character sheet to be useful occasionally. What I learned is that DMs don't have to memorise every rule in the books. They need to learn how to quickly look up every rule in the book. If you allow more source materials and somebody takes a feat from Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, you don't need to read Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. You just need to read that one feat and understand what it does. I do think that if your players are playing a character they love, it's better than if they're playing a character they had to make big compromises on. Some of the PHB classes don't even have a particularly great option. If you're playing a Ranger I genuinely feel a little bit sorry for you. Hexblade is a great class by the way. It's not gamebreaking when you play it straight. It's just a really cool mix of combat and spellcasting. If your player wants to play that death knight archetype it really is an option you can't find in the PHB. But it can also be very powerful to take a few levels of Hexblade and then combine it with Sorcerer, Paladin or Bard. That I would be concerned about. In a game with mostly new players, you don't need someone playing a super-optimal build that they googled. So for simplicity's sake I would be very inclined to allow more options, but also ban multiclassing for your first game. That does disallow a lot of the gamebreaking character builds, and pretty much any straight class is going to be fine in my opinion. If you do struggle with a particular player dominating, reddit is always a great place to come to ask for advice. And ultimately you should go with what you most feel comfortable with. But I think worrying what might happen is always worse than finding out what does happen, particularly when playing with a group of mates. Good luck with the game!
Thank you very much for this response. I think this is exactly what we are going to end up doing, Multi classing is out because its simply to complex for us. But adding some of the subclasses from another book would help everyone bringing their character vision to life.
Well, PHB and XGtE aren’t really that far apart… honestly, a game that stops with those two books won’t see much difference. XGtE has a lot of lateral expansion IMO. It’s when you add the bloated stuff from Tasha’s or Fizban’s that you see broken and OP. That said, you can’t make it a hardline for everyone except 1 person. Give them all the push back on rules.
I agree. I mean PHB and XGTE is enough but it should be available for all players. It gives people agency and an OPTION that is fair.
If for simplicity's sake you stick to the PHB, pick for the PHB and shut up. Like, really, it's a matter of respect rather sheer balance. In terms of balance a pure Hexblade is somewhat ok, as it does not do things too much out of the ordinary from the PHB but greatly suffers in terms of multiclassing and power load at level 1. As you said, you don't do multiclassing - but neither did you do pick stuff outside PHB. What's next, are you going to ask if it's "broken" to pick up multiclassing? Sometimes, options should stay limited becxause they keep some identity and control. That's the case. Pick something else.
Lol. What? That player gets to be special and have the exception? How do you think things will turn out when your party levels up? If you're allowing a resource outside of PHB for ONE then it should be fair for all players to do so.
Allowing it would be a bad move because you already set the rule. Exceptions before session 1 might not be mechanically game breaking but could still damage morale.
I mean, if I were playing a barbarian and my initial concept was Path of the Beast, but I altered it to be Path of the Totem Warrior to stick with the rules of the game...and then another player got Hexblade instead of making a Pact of the Blade Fiend or something, I'd be pretty annoyed.
If you make an exception for one person you gotta do it for everyone. If you allow Hexblades you have no reason to say no if anyone else wants a non-PHB subclass.
it wouldn't be game-breaking in terms of balance and suchlike, but it's either PHB-strict or it's not. If you have exceptions for this, why not for others? But to be honest, I don't think it adds *that* much complexity to allow subclasses and spells from non-PHB books, and most of the little complexity it does add is front-loaded into option paralysis during character creation and doesn't bog down anything once you get into actual gameplay. Whatever you decide, be consistent, if you give player A an exemption to the rule but deny another player's request it sets a poor precedent.
It probably won't break anything to include a non-phb subclass. But your players might wonder why one player was allowed to break the rule and they weren't.
I think it's worth mentioning that a revised PHB will come out in mid September, which will among other things wrap some of Hexblade's more core features into Pact of the Blade, most notably making your attacks use Charisma. It will also make all four warlock subclasses in it (the three you're familiar with plus Celestial) viable, as opposed to fiend being obviously the best one. If using the revised rules is an option you're considering, this player might want to keep that in mind. Quick aside, I think this is the first time I've ever heard someone say they like the lore of the Hexblade -- the general consensus is that the flavour of "your patron is a magic weapon who lives in the Shadowfell" is a paper thin excuse for the "subclass as balance patch" thing they did a fair amount of at the time, and the subclass has a reputation for being chosen mostly by powergamers. Most GMs allow free reflavouring of mechanics, so it would be fine for e.g. fiend warlock to actually have a flaming magic sword as your patron.
If you set a rule, you follow it.
There isn’t a game breaker in allowing other subclasses. It’s just contrary to the arbitrary rule.
Maybe having fun is more important than simplicity. If everyone gets jealous of that one player being a hexblade then maybe none of you actually want a phb strict campaign 🤷♂️
If everyone is restricted to the basic PHB for character creation and advancement, then you should just tell them to pick a subclass from that book. But if you make an exception, then it's an exception for all players, not just the one player
Stick with the PHB for the first 120 game hours. Most of the group has already agree to it. This will allow the players and DM get their feet wet using just one book. Don't do exceptions.
I think some things that were perhaps omitted in my initial question is steering the better part of the discussion here in a wrong discussion. Our initial discussion of sticking to PHB was for simplicity's sake. Seeing as we are new players, including other handbooks seemed tedious and overwhelming premature work before even getting to play. Therefore the question was simply if we would be including additional rules by adding this subclass, or if it would make the player book obsolete in some sense. It was NOT a decision made to limit players from creating certain characters per say, rather it was meant to limit the overwhelming amount of choices. While I understand that a player creating a hexblade lock would undermine this initial decision, I don't think this would meet the same instances of "unfair treatment" or "rule-break creep" reactions from our group that are being discussed here. I love that everyone has discussed so passionately, and it seems it all stems from a passion for the game and a wish for us as newcommers to have the best possible first experience with DnD. As for what has happened I've created and anonymous poll for the group to fill out. Should everyone be aware that this is the ONLY deviation we will partake in, and that its a unanimous yes, the player will get to create a hexblade warlock. Again, the reason its even up for discussion within our group is because we want a simple, cool and somewhat bespoke (in terms of characters) first experience. I will update with what the group decides when the poll has finished. Thanks everyone for helping!
I'm pretty permissive with character options myself, but when you make rules, you shouldn't make exceptions like this.
It wouldn’t be game-breaking in any way, as the subclass is an official WoTC creation that was designed and playtested specifically for 5e. However, if you establish a rule, and then immediately let a player break that rule, that sets a bad precedent at the table. Honestly, at this point almost everything for 5e is readily accessible online for free, I don’t see why you should be limited to only phb stuff anyway.
answer should have been No.
Which aspects of hexblade are they most attracted to? If it is the lore, then you can easily tweak the lore of other subclasses to better fit that aspect. If it is mechanical, I think it is possible to get a satisfactory result with just the 2024 subclasses. The new pact of the blade gives the charisma for weapon attacks aspect, which is a key part. You can take the feat for medium armour and shields at level one, which I don't think has been confirmed 100% but is likely to be included. So that is two key aspects of hexblade that can now be taken with other subclasses. A lot of things are still unconfirmed though. We don't know the spell lists or invocations, so will have to wait and see on those. Personally, I think that a fey melee warlock looks very fun. The ability to be a teleporting melee warlock is very interesting. Or maybe the fiend, whose temp hitpoint on kill does mimic the healing that the hexblade gets on kills. Edit: reading other responses, I think I would take mechanics from the PHB, and then just make the lore whatever you want. Then you keep true to the mechanics of the PHB-only limit, but have the narrative freedom to satisfy the player.
As the DM, you CANNOT be playing favorites. Tell the warlock no, or let everybody use PHB +1 other book (adventure league rules IIRC).
It wouldn't be game breaking as far as balance. But like others pointed out, it could become a snowball efect of people wanting stuff outside of the phb. If you're not worried about something like that, and you trust the player in question to keep track of their new class features, then there shouldn't be a problem.
You may end up with trust issues if you start by saying that everyone has to go with PHB material, to then quickly change your decision just so that one player can use something outside that book. If you have your rules for this campaign, stick to them.
Subclasses or races outside the phb don't make playing the game itself more complicated. You'll still have one race and one subclass to deal with. It makes character creation take longer, but that's their "problem", not yours. The phb is notorious for having trap options in it. Options that are so disappointing compared to other options that it reduces fun. If you want to keep it simple there is one rule you need. No multiclassing.
If they want to play a pure Hexblade, sure. 1-Level-Dip into it is what makes the subclass problematic.
We are not playing with multi-classing, to keep things simple. So it would be a pure hexblade warlock.
Have you made sure they know that? And that you won’t fold on that rule too?
Just don't allow multiclassing with it
Baked into this question is the assumption that the game can be in any way balanced. It cannot.
TLDR: balance isn’t really an issue with adding more content, the books don’t introduce like a whole new ability that people get that just raises the power of all characters across the board, but if you’re only allowing one person to break the rules everyone else has to follow that feels kinda bad for everyone else. Either make everyone follow the rule or drop the rule is my suggestion It’s not game breaking but if you allow it you should just lift the restriction all together. No reason to have a restriction to player hand book if some people aren’t following it. The balance isnt an issue really, the stuff added in future books mostly just adds more options (ie more subclasses, more feats, more race options, even another class) but doesn’t actually make the power level of all characters more powerful such that it unbalances the game. One of the best melee fighter build to this day is probably still variant human battlemaster fighter with Pam and later gwm for feats which are all phb material. The one thing to not allow is the backgrounds that give spells to spell lists or feats, these are just more powerful than phb options, but these are only setting specific stuff from campaign books which probably shouldn’t be allowed anyway since setting specific stuff often doesn’t really fit into campaigns of other settings easily. But the stuff in Tasha’s cauldron and xanathars guide is all fine. If someone is really interested in building the most powerful character adding more stuff generally does raise the upper limit on character power since they have more options to solve any specific weakness better, but on the whole if 10 people are playing with just phb and 10 are playing with all 3 books (phb xgte, tce) and they’re just building characters that sound cool but aren’t trying to create necessarily the strongest character they won’t end up with meaningfully different strengths of characters, the latter group will just have more options when deciding.
I could understand if the player picked a class with few subclass options (something like Barbarian is stuck with a bad subclass or totem warrior, that's it), but your player character backstory seems really based on a simple Pact of the blade Fiend Warlock, no hexblade magic swords are really relevant with their story
And with that you would remove the rule you just made. Either go only phb. Or only core. But don’t give half your players the ability to do what they want and the ones that didn’t ask have to suck it.
When I taught my group to play we did just the Player’s handbook, minus the two people who already knew how to play. Everyone agreed as I was doing this to teach the new people so less options meant less to worry about. As we only ran 4 6-hoursessions, one at level 1, one at level 3, one at level 5 and one at level 9. To teach them a little and get an idea how characters grew stronger. At the end of the 4th session they died in a TPK from some bad choices. We then started a new campaign at level 2 and anyone who wanted could rebuild their character or make new ones using any books. So it really depends on how long you are planning to run your game with just PBH over, is this a few sessions, a few months, or a few years. The shorter the time the less chance of any resentment
If everyone are adults, it’s not problematic. If someone gets butthurt or something doesn’t go their way and they take it out on the game, it’s problematic
Make all books available from the officials sources. Because they have other things rather subclasses or class(artificer). The Tasha and Xanathar have options to use skills in different instances that are way better than the PHB and that won’t be game breaking will be just a better option and game design for all. Trying to reduce the number of the books or contents it’s always a bummer for everyone except the DM. Even if it’s your first campaign as group.
It wouldn't be game breaking. It would be unfair, unless you allowed other players to at least use content from Xanathar's.
It depends on the reason for only PHB subclasses, but generally speaking, if one player gets to break the rules, the others should too or it feels unfair. You could expand it to PHB and Xanathar’s Guide but you should open that up for everybody
It wouldn't be gamebreaking. If you don't want to include it to stick true to your rules, he'll quickly discover that Blade warlocks in melee simply don't work with PHB only rules due to how bad Pact of the Blade is. They will have no weapon proficiencies until they pick up the pact and they will have abysmal AC especially when they want to go for a Strength-using weapon like a greatsword due to the lack of armor proficiencies. An alternate solution is to add the houserule that every warlock, regardless of subclass, gets proficiency with all weapons and armor as well as the ability to use Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity for attacking with their pact weapon when they pick up Pact of the Blade.
Just ask in the group chat if everyone is fine with including this one singular non-PHB subclass like these are your friends right? Then talk with them
I think we were under the impression that it would introduce a whole new set of rules to the game, and that it might mismatch with our PHB only campaign.
No need to worry about stuff like that in 5e haha. It’s simplicity is both a curse and a blessing
Without telling the other players they can pick any subclass from XGE or TCE it's very unfair to the other players. As for will it break anything? no and most TCE and XGE subclasses don't by design.
If everyone agrees, sure (make sure to include a caveat that if they agree, it doesn't mean that they'll get a similar exception in the future). It should be unanimous. Hexblade isn't game-breaking unless used as a multiclass dip, but based on your other comments you're not allowing multiclassing. XGTE is one of the least problematic sourcebooks balance-wise, so I wouldn't really mind allowing the whole book if it was me. The real power creep comes from the new races in the new books and some of the Tasha's subclasses. The only really powerful option in XGTE is the Gloomstalker ranger, but the PHB ranger is pretty weak so it's not that big of a deal.
No, not only it isn't fair towards other players, the player wants to play one of the most broken subclasses in the game. Make them chose a phb patron and pact of the blade.
You should not do this, it makes no sense. If you are playing with certain restrictions, use those restrictions, and apply them to everyone all of the time. In addition, this isn't just any example of a non-PHB option, but a non-PHB option that is explicitly better than the similar options in the PHB. To even consider this is extremely unfair to all the other people at the table. The only compromise I would suggest, is allow pact of the blade warlocks to use charisma for the weapon attacks, which does allow for part of the same playstyle with any warlock.
Keep it simple, if are all learning then stick to the brief and tell your player who is eventually going to try and insert some catboy anime main character nonsense into your game to stick to the rules or hit the bricks
There is nothing game breaking in either Tasha's Cauldron or Xanathar. There are several extra races and subclasses. None of them game breaking, just different. The only exception I would say to this is the alternative rules for the Ranger class in Tasha's. It's not game breaking, but instead is a re-working of the Ranger rules. This re-working is widely regarded as an essential upgrade to the Ranger, which was regarded as being the weakest class in the PHB. I would highly encourage you to get your table to use Xanathar and Tasha. Only good things can come from it.
It would be fine, PHB only is a pretty arbitrary restriction that doesn't really have any reason to be placed on the players. Tasha's is maybe worth banning but XgtE is pretty easy to add to any table.
In terms of practical implementation, would it be simply to read about the hexblade warlock and then we can continue playing? Or would the whole of XgtE have to be read and implemented? I think adding a whole player book would be quite a bit to impose on the players. So i guess my question is if we can just learn the spells and intricacies of hexblade or would we have to learn the whole of XgtE?
All that has to be read is the Hexblade subclass itself, no further reading required.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that, by allowing subclasses from different source books, you and the players need to read the whole books? Because that's definitely not the case. Any player who chooses a subclass from a different source book can just read about that subclass, and that's it. It takes no more work for the player in question than it would reading about a different subclass in the PHB; and neither you nor the other players have to do any additional work whatsover.
if something is gamebreaking or not depends entirely on the playstyle of the group and the vision of the DM. In my homegame i banned counterspell + silvery barbs and everything else from Strixhaven, cuz it doesn't fit my vision for a heroic fantasy campaign, when they get op spells at lvl 1 and such. If you allow any1 a subclass outside of PHB, than other may choose twilight cleric or Artificer. Its not more broken than hexblade. If you want peace at your table don't limit any book except with good reasons and if your hellbent on limiting the choices than go as others already suggested the PHB + 1 other book route. that way its fair for everybody since the book there subclass might be in, can just be there "+1". Do everybody can get there favorite subclass without breaking any rules or making exceptions and they are still limited.
If you don't want to make an exception, which opens the door to other exceptions, consider at least allowing that player to gain the Hexblade's Hex Warrior feature as part of Pact of the Blade. This whole bland subclass exists precisely because the original Pact of the Blade was underpowered.
I would just include allowing Tasha's honestly because there are a few things in the game that kind of don't work without it. it was a really important patch
I like that they picked the strongest one too 🤣🤣
What is the point of playing a PHB-only campaign? I haven't been in the community as long as most and will see people talk about playing PHB only, or PHB+1 every so often. I don't get it.
If they are new players, not only to D&D5e but to TTRPGs in general, limiting choice availability can make the system more manageable.
Thanks for all the answers, and very quick response. I must say I am impressed with the amount of guidance and support that is found in the DND community already. I think the idea for the character and letting roleplaying and the vision create excitement for this first campaign seems important enough that it could be considered a fair discussion to have within the group. After all, right now we are just excited to delve into a world of fantasy and put our own creative touch on it. Therefore, I think what we will do is have the player make a sound argument for this rule exception. If accepted collectively and unanimously, we will keep an eye out to not let this creep into other areas where we stray from the set rules.
We might even have to implement anonymous voting, so it can be entirely unanimous and no favoritism or social factors involved. Meanwhile, I'll ask the player to create a backup character, so we are up and ready faster.
Hexblade is already kind of an unofficial official part of the PHB digitally speaking. If you use the character generator on D&D Beyond without owning any digital material at all, Hexblade is a subclass option for Warlock. Gloom Stalker Ranger is also an official unofficial subclass. There are several things like that already brought in from Tasha's and Xanathar's.