warlock magic weapon creation abuse

[CyberThread]

So we have seen a few powerful weapon creations. The devils spears and grappling hooks.

Some arguments have been made that they are created for large so players can't use them.

What about a warlock blade pact. Could they make a version for themselves to use?

[Eslin]

So we have seen a few powerful weapon creations. The devils spears and grappling hooks.

Some arguments have been made that they are created for large so players can't use them.

What about a warlock blade pact. Could they make a version for themselves to use?

You could argue that they could make a scaled down version, but you can also just turn yourself large if you want full legality (polymorph, enlarge/reduce, lycanthropy). Wizard/warlock makes a surprisingly good gish with reduce/enlarge and arcane ward+armour of agathys.

[DireSickFish]

I get where the argument comes from. The weapon exists and I can make any weapon so I'll just make these demon/devil weapons my own.

Holy avengers exist too, can I make a holy avenger sword from my warlock pact? It seems like a rather extreme use of the ability. Now it makes me wonder if I can have a catapult as a warlock weapon. Makes about as much sense as these ones.

[CyberThread]

I get where the argument comes from. The weapon exists and I can make any weapon so I'll just make these demon/devil weapons my own.

Holy avengers exist too, can I make a holy avenger sword from my warlock pact? It seems like a rather extreme use of the ability. Now it makes me wonder if I can have a catapult as a warlock weapon. Makes about as much sense as these ones.

I have the fiend pact so makes logical sense right to know of a demonic weapon?

You can only make a melee weapon. No ranged rock throwers

[Shining Wrath]

There's rules for the Pact Weapon being a magical one, so I think to have an unusual weapon like these you have to first obtain such a weapon, then "bind" it as your Pact Weapon. I certainly don't think you can choose to have your pact weapon be "the best weapon I ever heard of" if that implies, e.g., +5 to hit, +10 to damage, and casts Prestidigitation upon itself after each battle to clean off the blood.

[MustacheFart]

You can only make a melee weapon. No ranged rock throwers

Actually, you're not quite right by RAW. By RAW, it says you can only make a melee weapon but you can turn ANY magic weapon into your pact weapon. The process takes 1 hour which is also the duration of the magic weapon spell.

Have a wizard cast magic weapon on a catapult and concentrate for 1 hour. Then the warlock can make that his pact weapon. Bam! Summoning catapults.

[Person_Man]

When thinking about 5E, my feeling is that its important to remember the intent of the designers. The intent of 5E is that many rules and abilities are written in a flexible way, so that DMs can players can implement them in a way that makes sense at their table. (As opposed to writing them in a concise/legalistic/4E/Keyword/forumla method, where you would need a very strict and balanced system). So I won't comment on the RAW, which honestly could be anything you as a DM are willing to allow.

But speaking to how I'd implement it at my table, I would allow the Warlock to create any weapon that they are Proficient with (melee or ranged) that is intended for player use. You want to make something like Hank's Energy Bow? Fine, it has the same stats as whatever type of bow in the player's handbook you're proficient with, plus whatever magical benefits your class abilities specifically grant it.

I think its kinda ridiculous to assume that the designer of the Warlock intended for it to be this crazy open ended ability that would grant the Warlock 2d12 damage + whatever per attack.

[CyberThread]

When thinking about 5E, my feeling is that its important to remember the intent of the designers. The intent of 5E is that many rules and abilities are written in a flexible way, so that DMs can players can implement them in a way that makes sense at their table. (As opposed to writing them in a concise/legalistic/4E/Keyword/forumla method, where you would need a very strict and balanced system). So I won't comment on the RAW, which honestly could be anything you as a DM are willing to allow.

But speaking to how I'd implement it at my table, I would allow the Warlock to create any weapon that they are Proficient with (melee or ranged) that is intended for player use. You want to make something like Hank's Energy Bow? Fine, it has the same stats as whatever type of bow in the player's handbook you're proficient with, plus whatever magical benefits your class abilities specifically grant it.

I think its kinda ridiculous to assume that the designer of the Warlock intended for it to be this crazy open ended ability that would grant the Warlock 2d12 damage + whatever per attack.


That is why RAW vs RAI , is a thing.

[Shining Wrath]

That is why RAW vs RAI , is a thing.

And why the questions:
"If you were DMing, would you allow that rule interpretation at your table?" and
"Would you expect your usual DM to allow that rule interpretation?"
can cut through a lot of the crud.

Would your DM allow a Cleric 17 / Wizard 1 build to add 9th level wizard spells to his book and cast them using cleric slots?

If you were DM, would you allow a Bard to cast cone of cold emanating from the Bard and his Steed with one casting?

It shuts down a fair amount of tendentious theorycraft.

Used that today in the Tarrasque debate: would you expect to be able to cast a ritual while riding a galloping horse?

[randomodo]

would you expect to be able to cast a ritual while riding a galloping horse?

No, but I would expect to be able to cast it while riding a galloping tarrasque.

/ducks

[Segev]

While I certainly see where the thought that a Wizard 1/Cleric 19 can put 9th level spells in his wizard spellbook and prepare them comes from, given the wording of the Wizard class and what spells he can learn/prepare and how it's based on spell slots available...I think the multiclassing rules taking the time and word count to discuss spells known/prepared as if you were a single-classed character of your level in the relevant class makes it fairly clear that you need to look to the spell slots available to that class at that level to determine spell level caps on spells prepared/learned.


That said, I do think it right to say that 5e is written much more with the intent that DMs simply rule how it works best for their table. If I had a complaint about how they approached that, it would be that they didn't put more sidebars or blurbs in with "design philosophy" thoughts to give us a window into RAI, even if an imperfect one. This edition really does seem to be striving for a looser game, while avoiding the Palladium sin of leaving things so undefined that it's impossible to do aught but make up something to fill in gaps. They probably succeed more at that than does Palladium just because it's a much more mature rules set; Palladium is very much a love-sonnet to 1e AD&D even now and does not use RPG mechanical tools developed since the mid-90s. It has much of its own innovations, but they still show their age.

In short, D&D 5e is not going to be very robust to the kind of RAW analysis that 3.5/PF and presumably 4e were. There's a lot of implied elements and DM-call needed. I think their goal is to write it such that most people's instinctive reading of what's written will be similar and be workable, rather than to be precise and legalistic. To close gaps, they will make it as plain as possible, but they're not going to spell it out in fine-keyworded detail. Hopefully, this will be sufficient that there won't be obvious glaring holes which need to have something made up to cover them.

[CyberThread]

Back to the core. Yes devil weapons seem fine

[Eslin]

But speaking to how I'd implement it at my table, I would allow the Warlock to create any weapon that they are Proficient with (melee or ranged) that is intended for player use.

Not a bad way of going about things, but keep in mind as is it specifically makes the warlock proficient in whatever weapon he creates - and if you do it proficiency based, the warlock is only one feat from being proficient in various devil weapons.


There's rules for the Pact Weapon being a magical one, so I think to have an unusual weapon like these you have to first obtain such a weapon, then "bind" it as your Pact Weapon. I certainly don't think you can choose to have your pact weapon be "the best weapon I ever heard of" if that implies, e.g., +5 to hit, +10 to damage, and casts Prestidigitation upon itself after each battle to clean off the blood.

Keep in mind they're not magical weapons - a horned devil's fork is a 2d8 reach weapon, nothing more.

[Strill]

When thinking about 5E, my feeling is that its important to remember the intent of the designers. The intent of 5E is that many rules and abilities are written in a flexible way, so that DMs can players can implement them in a way that makes sense at their table. (As opposed to writing them in a concise/legalistic/4E/Keyword/forumla method, where you would need a very strict and balanced system). So I won't comment on the RAW, which honestly could be anything you as a DM are willing to allow.

But speaking to how I'd implement it at my table, I would allow the Warlock to create any weapon that they are Proficient with (melee or ranged) that is intended for player use. You want to make something like Hank's Energy Bow? Fine, it has the same stats as whatever type of bow in the player's handbook you're proficient with, plus whatever magical benefits your class abilities specifically grant it.

I think its kinda ridiculous to assume that the designer of the Warlock intended for it to be this crazy open ended ability that would grant the Warlock 2d12 damage + whatever per attack.

The book specifically says that you BECOME proficient with your pact weapon. I don't see why you would limit it to weapons the warlock is already proficient with.

[Suichimo]

I have the fiend pact so makes logical sense right to know of a demonic weapon?

You can only make a melee weapon. No ranged rock throwers

Not really. Grats, an evil outsider bought your soul. That doesn't mean you gained knowledge of Devilish weaponry.

If you can get access to one you could then make it your pact weapon.

[Eslin]

Not really. Grats, an evil outsider bought your soul. That doesn't mean you gained knowledge of Devilish weaponry.

If you can get access to one you could then make it your pact weapon.

Not how that works. There are explicitly magical weapons in the MM, there are plenty of weapons (the dao maul's a favourite, 4d6 damage and auto knockdown on hit) that are just mundane, but awesome. You don't need access to one to make it into your pact weapon, you just reshape your pact weapon into one and you get proficiency with it.

[Suichimo]

Not how that works. There are explicitly magical weapons in the MM, there are plenty of weapons (the dao maul's a favourite, 4d6 damage and auto knockdown on hit) that are just mundane, but awesome. You don't need access to one to make it into your pact weapon, you just reshape your pact weapon into one and you get proficiency with it.

I'm not saying you, or anyone in your party needs to actually own one. I do think you'll need to personally see one, and probably have held one for a bit, though. Simply selling your soul to a Devil isn't grounds for access to this, in my opinion.

[Eslin]

Why? A warlock doesn't need to have seen a greatsword to change his weapon into one, why does he need to see a maul? And if he absolutely does, why can't he just make a knowledge check?

[rollingForInit]

The weapons in the Monster Manual generally aren't listed as separate weapons that anything could use, but as an action that the monster can. There's nothing that says that the special stuff in the attacks come solely from the weapon. Could just as easily come from the monster's magical abilities that they channel through a special weapon.

Either way ... common sense? Anything that allows a character to become seriously overpowered compared to the rest of the party, at all times, would be a big NO for me. A level 3 Warlock who wants to switch between a Solar's weapon (6d8 extra radiant damage) and a Dao's maul (4d6+ knockdown)? Just no. Common sense dictates that it isn't allowed when you have to overinterpret the rules to get there.

[Hytheter]

I haven't got the manual, but aren't most of the cool weapons in it used by huge monsters?
I would rule that you can summon them with your pact, but they are far too large for you to wield. You want a smaller version? Fine. But that reduces it's base damage and the extent of its fancy effects, because a smaller weapon is obviously less effective than a larger one.

edit: rollforinit raises a vaguely related and very valid point. The MM isn't just describing those weapons, it's describing how that monster uses that weapon, which is probably better than how a player could. Hell, if humans could wield them they would be already. There's a reason mundane weapons built by humanoids for humanoids don't exceed certain capabilities.


The book specifically says that you BECOME proficient with your pact weapon. I don't see why you would limit it to weapons the warlock is already proficient with.

Especially since that rules out all Martial weapons for straight Warlocks, which I don't think is intended.

[Eslin]

The weapons in the Monster Manual generally aren't listed as separate weapons that anything could use, but as an action that the monster can. There's nothing that says that the special stuff in the attacks come solely from the weapon. Could just as easily come from the monster's magical abilities that they channel through a special weapon.

Either way ... common sense? Anything that allows a character to become seriously overpowered compared to the rest of the party, at all times, would be a big NO for me. A level 3 Warlock who wants to switch between a Solar's weapon (6d8 extra radiant damage) and a Dao's maul (4d6+ knockdown)? Just no. Common sense dictates that it isn't allowed when you have to overinterpret the rules to get there.

A Solar specifically states its weapons deal 6d8 extra radiant damage as part of its stat block. If a monster's attack has a property that doesn't come with the weapon itself, the monster's entry will say that. The dao's weapon is simply that, a really big maul that does 4d6 damage. And how is that common sense? I dm a 5e group and the druid spent a while scouring the monster manual for good animals to turn into - and after she was done she passed the manual to the warlock, who was annoyed at the homogeneity of 5e weapons and wanted to search for a bigger and better weapon. He ended up grabbing the minotaur's greataxe, which does 2d12 damage.

This is not overinterpretation of rules. Again, profiles will tell you when the weapon's properties are due to the monster - the Erinyes' profile says its weapons are magical and do 3d8 extra poison damage on hit (included in the attacks). If it doesn't have that entry, it's the weapon itself, such as the chain devil's 2d6 chain. This is common sense, I hope you recognise it since you keep mentioning it.

And regarding the size - yes, most of the monsters are large. I rule that unless the player is large too, the weapon is unusable. Again, common sense.

[Suichimo]

Why? A warlock doesn't need to have seen a greatsword to change his weapon into one, why does he need to see a maul? And if he absolutely does, why can't he just make a knowledge check?

Martial and Simple weapons are all common occurrences in the day to day life of an adventurer. The Warlock may have been putzing around in Ye Olde Weapon Parlor and picked up a greatsword.

A greatsword isn't an uncommon/rare weapon like the ones being talked about here.

[Eslin]

Martial and Simple weapons are all common occurrences in the day to day life of an adventurer. The Warlock may have been putzing around in Ye Olde Weapon Parlor and picked up a greatsword.

A greatsword isn't an uncommon/rare weapon like the ones being talked about here.

'you can choose the form the weapon takes each time you create it'

It doesn't say anything about prior knowledge, and if your DM rules it does then you should be able to make a knowledge check. Hell it wouldn't even be a hard knowledge check, considering other warlocks would have thought of this kind of thing immediately and tracked it down themselves.

Knowledge history check: Considering how huge an advantage lycanthropy is (and thus how often you must see werebears fighting for the forces of good, what with the complete lack of downside to being a werebear if you're lawful good) and how obvious a trick using spells like enlarge to make yourself bigger in combat is, there must have been plenty of large fighters. What kinds of weapons did they use?

Knowledge arcana check: Hmm, genies are pretty large aren't they. What kind of weapons do they use? (Side note: genies disappear when they die but leave their weapons - clearly it was intended PCs use them if able, looting your enemies is a pretty basic part of D&D)

[Suichimo]

'you can choose the form the weapon takes each time you create it'

It doesn't say anything about prior knowledge, and if your DM rules it does then you should be able to make a knowledge check. Hell it wouldn't even be a hard knowledge check, considering other warlocks would have thought of this kind of thing immediately and tracked it down themselves.

Yes, I understand how the ability works. But just because it takes the form you want, that doesn't mean the specifics would be correct.

I haven't looked in to the knowledges for this edition yet, but I don't think 3.5's knowledges would have given you exact specifications. You'll certainly might learn of its existence, though.

P.S. Personally, I'm also working under the pretense of Bladelocks being largely outnumber by Tome and Chainlocks.

[Eslin]

Yes, I understand how the ability works. But just because it takes the form you want, that doesn't mean the specifics would be correct.

I haven't looked in to the knowledges for this edition yet, but I don't think 3.5's knowledges would have given you exact specifications. You'll certainly might learn of its existence, though.

P.S. Personally, I'm also working under the pretense of Bladelocks being largely outnumber by Tome and Chainlocks.

Not sure why, bladelock is the first thing a whole lot of martial characters would dabble in.

And there is no reason for knowledge to be vague. Get a decent knowledge check, recall the diagrams of the different devil weapons you read in Lorgram's Weaponnes of the Lower Planes.

[Hytheter]

He ended up grabbing the minotaur's greataxe, which does 2d12 damage.
...
And regarding the size - yes, most of the monsters are large. I rule that unless the player is large too, the weapon is unusable. Again, common sense.

So your Warlock is large sized?

[Eslin]

He's warlock 3/wizard x (planning to ride the arcane ward/armour of agathys train into the sunset), and tends to spend his warlock spell slots on enlarge person, wade in and watch enemies kill themselves trying to hit him.

[Suichimo]

Not sure why, bladelock is the first thing a whole lot of martial characters would dabble in.

And there is no reason for knowledge to be vague. Get a decent knowledge check, recall the diagrams of the different devil weapons you read in Lorgram's Weaponnes of the Lower Planes.

Because if you wanted a bit of s-cha to liven up your routine, I figure you'd go Bard or Sorc before Bladelock.

I'll have to look at what the PHB says later, when I wake up, because I haven't paid too much attention to the skills I'm not using on my Pally right now.

My biggest problem with all this is basically the Warlock getting weapons that easily beat the pants off of anything the actual martial classes will have for several levels because "lol I sold my soul to a devil" or "lol I read a out it in a book". No 3rd level character should have access to a 6d8 radiant weapon for effectively nothing.

[Hytheter]

He's warlock 3/wizard x (planning to ride the arcane ward/armour of agathys train into the sunset), and tends to spend his warlock spell slots on enlarge person, wade in and watch enemies kill themselves trying to hit him.

Right. I guess that's fair; I'm pretty sure the Minotaur's Greataxe is just a regular greataxe, scaled up for Large creatures.

Some of the other weapons in the book are pretty obviously magical though, despite not being stated explicitly, and I don't think Warlocks are supposed to be able to call those.

[Eslin]

Because if you wanted a bit of s-cha to liven up your routine, I figure you'd go Bard or Sorc before Bladelock.

I'll have to look at what the PHB says later, when I wake up, because I haven't paid too much attention to the skills I'm not using on my Pally right now.

My biggest problem with all this is basically the Warlock getting weapons that easily beat the pants off of anything the actual martial classes will have for several levels because "lol I sold my soul to a devil" or "lol I read a out it in a book". No 3rd level character should have access to a 6d8 radiant weapon for effectively nothing.

Except, as has already been clearly shown, they don't get access to that. The 6d8 radiant damage comes from the monster, not the weapon, and that is specifically pointed out in the monster's profile. If a monsters weapons do extra damage, the profile will tell you that, and the warlock don't get that damage. The damage from the weapon itself is usually around 2d12 or 4d6 and those are large, so the character needs to get large to use them.

[Suichimo]

Except, as has already been clearly shown, they don't get access to that. The 6d8 radiant damage comes from the monster, not the weapon, and that is specifically pointed out in the monster's profile. If a monsters weapons do extra damage, the profile will tell you that, and the warlock don't get that damage. The damage from the weapon itself is usually around 2d12 or 4d6 and those are large, so the character needs to get large to use them.

Ah, got confused when that came up, then. I've been up since 1PM yesterday and won't be able to go to bed until probably about 11am, allowing for travel home from work.

That still puts the Warlock ahead of everyone, though, by a sizable margin still.

[Eslin]

Ah, got confused when that came up, then. I've been up since 1PM yesterday and won't be able to go to bed until probably about 11am, allowing for travel home from work.

That still puts the Warlock ahead of everyone, though, by a sizable margin still.

Yes, it does. A normal large character will have (2d6+1d4) 9.5 damage, while one wielding a minotaur's greataxe will have (2d12) 13 damage. They've invested 3 levels in warlock for a specific weapon shaping trick that only works while large and gives them an extra 1d6 damage, why not let them have it?

If you ban that kind of thing you're making the players feel like they are punished for thinking outside the box.

[Suichimo]

Yes, it does. A normal large character will have (2d6+1d4) 9.5 damage, while one wielding a minotaur's greataxe will have (2d12) 13 damage. They've invested 3 levels in warlock for a specific weapon shaping trick that only works while large and gives them an extra 1d6 damage, why not let them have it?

If you ban that kind of thing you're making the players feel like they are punished for thinking outside the box.

I'm talking if the weapon was sized down.

[Eslin]

What do you mean?

[Draken]

I'm talking if the weapon was sized down.


What do you mean?

He probably reducing the size of the weapon to fit medium hands.

Which sort of disregards a very simple observation to make, based on the various weapons of the larger creatures in the MM, that is, that when you make a weapon of a larger size than medium, you increase its damage by an additional instance of the same dice.

Namely:


Size
Medium
Large
Huge
Gargantuan


Damage Die
1d12
2d12
3d12
4d12

[Suichimo]

He probably reducing the size of the weapon to fit medium hands.

Which sort of disregards a very simple observation to make, based on the various weapons of the larger creatures in the MM, that is, that when you make a weapon of a larger size than medium, you increase its damage by an additional instance of the same dice.

Namely:


Size
Medium
Large
Huge
Gargantuan


Damage Die
1d12
2d12
3d12
4d12



Correct on what I meant.

I haven't seen any of the MM or even the module that my DM is running my group through. I'm a player and I don't usually look at those, so all I had to go off of for sizing rules was 3.5. I wasn't aware they had changed.

[rollingForInit]

A Solar specifically states its weapons deal 6d8 extra radiant damage as part of its stat block. If a monster's attack has a property that doesn't come with the weapon itself, the monster's entry will say that. The dao's weapon is simply that, a really big maul that does 4d6 damage. And how is that common sense? I dm a 5e group and the druid spent a while scouring the monster manual for good animals to turn into - and after she was done she passed the manual to the warlock, who was annoyed at the homogeneity of 5e weapons and wanted to search for a bigger and better weapon. He ended up grabbing the minotaur's greataxe, which does 2d12 damage.

This is not overinterpretation of rules. Again, profiles will tell you when the weapon's properties are due to the monster - the Erinyes' profile says its weapons are magical and do 3d8 extra poison damage on hit (included in the attacks). If it doesn't have that entry, it's the weapon itself, such as the chain devil's 2d6 chain. This is common sense, I hope you recognise it since you keep mentioning it.

And regarding the size - yes, most of the monsters are large. I rule that unless the player is large too, the weapon is unusable. Again, common sense.

That's not the same, because a druid has a hard CR limit on which bests can be used for Wild Shape. There is no such hard limit explicitly stated for the Warlock (though I certainly think it's RAI).

I think it's against common sense to allow a level 3 class feature to replicate seriously magical weapons, even artifacts, especially since magical weapons are more restricted in this edition. It would put the warlock way ahead of any other class if they can just grab a superstrong weapon, for free, and have it permanently, forever. You have the fighter who'll have to be content with a 2d6 Greatsword, then the warlock can just magically have something that deals 2d8+3d6 damage.

It gets especially absurd since the text for the Pact Blade feature states that you can transform one magic weapon into your pact blade. If you could just use the standard pace blade creation to replicate any magical weapon, there would be no need to perform an hour-long ritual to get the benefit of having a stronger weapon as your pact blade.

And, it also says in the description "You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options)". Which makes it sound even more as if the chapter 5 weapon stats are what they intended for use.

[Eslin]

That's not the same, because a druid has a hard CR limit on which bests can be used for Wild Shape. There is no such hard limit explicitly stated for the Warlock (though I certainly think it's RAI).

I think it's against common sense to allow a level 3 class feature to replicate seriously magical weapons, even artifacts, especially since magical weapons are more restricted in this edition. It would put the warlock way ahead of any other class if they can just grab a superstrong weapon, for free, and have it permanently, forever. You have the fighter who'll have to be content with a 2d6 Greatsword, then the warlock can just magically have something that deals 2d8+3d6 damage.

It gets especially absurd since the text for the Pact Blade feature states that you can transform one magic weapon into your pact blade. If you could just use the standard pace blade creation to replicate any magical weapon, there would be no need to perform an hour-long ritual to get the benefit of having a stronger weapon as your pact blade.

And, it also says in the description "You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options)". Which makes it sound even more as if the chapter 5 weapon stats are what they intended for use.

Fun fact: I have never at any point indicated that I thought it could duplicate magical weapons. I'm perfectly fine with using it to replicate bone devil grappling polearms or dao mauls or minotaur greataxes, but if it's got clearly magical effects attached like the 3d6+slow cold damage polearm then I rule my players need to obtain it and make it their pact weapon if they want to do that.

Now, that bit's DM reading and grey area - if a weapon does 1d6 fire damage, is it magical? There were nonmagical materials back in 3.5 that did similar small amounts of damage, and unlike the entries that say 'x monsters weapons are magical and do XdY flubber damage' things like the ice devil polearm aren't explicitly magical, but as DM I rule that they probably are magical if they have elemental damage on them.

[Strill]

Fun fact: I have never at any point indicated that I thought it could duplicate magical weapons. I'm perfectly fine with using it to replicate bone devil grappling polearms or dao mauls or minotaur greataxes, but if it's got clearly magical effects attached like the 3d6+slow cold damage polearm then I rule my players need to obtain it and make it their pact weapon if they want to do that.

Now, that bit's DM reading and grey area - if a weapon does 1d6 fire damage, is it magical? There were nonmagical materials back in 3.5 that did similar small amounts of damage, and unlike the entries that say 'x monsters weapons are magical and do XdY flubber damage' things like the ice devil polearm aren't explicitly magical, but as DM I rule that they probably are magical if they have elemental damage on them.

Honestly this doesn't even seem overpowered to me. Blade Pact already has to jump through tons of hoops to do comparable damage to Eldritch Blast, so it looks to me like using one of these crazy weapons might be a good way to bring their damage back up to par.

[Draken]

Honestly this doesn't even seem overpowered to me. Blade Pact already has to jump through tons of hoops to do comparable damage to Eldritch Blast, so it looks to me like using one of these crazy weapons might be a good way to bring their damage back up to par.

On its own, yeah. But once you get magic weapons on the deck, I think the Blade Pact might pull ahead. Talk of magic weapons usually limits itself to the bland +1 to +3 Whatevers, but it is very likely that the magic weapons listed will have more stuff to them, such as the greatsword in Hoard of the Dragon Queen, which does 1d6 extra necrotic damage (2d6 if you attune it).

Of course, that depends on whether or not there will be magic items that boost spellcasting, such as magic foci.


Fun fact: I have never at any point indicated that I thought it could duplicate magical weapons. I'm perfectly fine with using it to replicate bone devil grappling polearms or dao mauls or minotaur greataxes, but if it's got clearly magical effects attached like the 3d6+slow cold damage polearm then I rule my players need to obtain it and make it their pact weapon if they want to do that.

Now, that bit's DM reading and grey area - if a weapon does 1d6 fire damage, is it magical? There were nonmagical materials back in 3.5 that did similar small amounts of damage, and unlike the entries that say 'x monsters weapons are magical and do XdY flubber damage' things like the ice devil polearm aren't explicitly magical, but as DM I rule that they probably are magical if they have elemental damage on them.

I am pretty positive that a Dao Maul is just a large sized maul and that the proning effect belongs to the Dao itself.

The Osyluth's hooked polearm would be interesting, just have to consider that it doesn't look like a reach weapon, so it is essentially a grapple with greataxe damage. The Kyton's chain would also be an interesting weapon, on that front.

Heck, who knows, maybe all those "Exotic" weapons are meant to make the Weapon Master feat somewhat worthwhile.

[rollingForInit]

Fun fact: I have never at any point indicated that I thought it could duplicate magical weapons. I'm perfectly fine with using it to replicate bone devil grappling polearms or dao mauls or minotaur greataxes, but if it's got clearly magical effects attached like the 3d6+slow cold damage polearm then I rule my players need to obtain it and make it their pact weapon if they want to do that.

Now, that bit's DM reading and grey area - if a weapon does 1d6 fire damage, is it magical? There were nonmagical materials back in 3.5 that did similar small amounts of damage, and unlike the entries that say 'x monsters weapons are magical and do XdY flubber damage' things like the ice devil polearm aren't explicitly magical, but as DM I rule that they probably are magical if they have elemental damage on them.

Fair enough, I just used the ice devil's spear because I've seen it mentioned in other discussions, so I assumed that it was on the table.

How would a weapon permanently deal fire damage without being magical? Actually, whether the weapon is magical or not feels sort of besides the point. If it's obviously far superior to martial weapons, for all intents and purposes it might as well be magical. A dao maul deals 4d6 damage, which on average is 20 - that's 3 more than a fighter's maximum damage per attack with a maul of his own.

I guess the issue would sort of disappear if you let the other characters find equally impressive weapons early on. But if everyone else is stuck with ordinary martial weapons until they encounter a rare magical item, and the Warlock can run around with a Dao's magical/supremely forged maul ... that just feels very unbalanced, to me.

And the reason I would call that maul magical is that, at least to me, a martial weapon is a well-crafted, solid weapon. If something's goign to deal much more damage than a martial weapon, it must've been crafted with magic in some way.

[Eslin]

Fair enough, I just used the ice devil's spear because I've seen it mentioned in other discussions, so I assumed that it was on the table.

How would a weapon permanently deal fire damage without being magical? Actually, whether the weapon is magical or not feels sort of besides the point. If it's obviously far superior to martial weapons, for all intents and purposes it might as well be magical. A dao maul deals 4d6 damage, which on average is 20 - that's 3 more than a fighter's maximum damage per attack with a maul of his own.

I guess the issue would sort of disappear if you let the other characters find equally impressive weapons early on. But if everyone else is stuck with ordinary martial weapons until they encounter a rare magical item, and the Warlock can run around with a Dao's magical/supremely forged maul ... that just feels very unbalanced, to me.

And the reason I would call that maul magical is that, at least to me, a martial weapon is a well-crafted, solid weapon. If something's goign to deal much more damage than a martial weapon, it must've been crafted with magic in some way.

The minotaur's greataxe is 2d12 damage, is every CR3 minotaur walking around with a magic axe?

[Kodee]

Dungeon Masters Guide p. 278 present the solution:


If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, it deals damage appropriate to the weapon.


Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan.


You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.

"Minotaur Greataxe" is a large oversized greataxe.
"Dao Maul" is a large oversized maul. Is it a magical weapon?

[Socratov]

If you want to enjoy the gravy train of defence, enlagrement and warlock weapons, why not go Warlock 12 for Lifedrinker, and go Sorcerer 8, take GWM and Crossbow master. Your round now consists of 2*(4d6+20)+4d10+20 (on average 10 dmg on your turn which you can do 8 rounds in a row before slot conversion) with a quickened Agonising EB. What's more you get mage armour always on from dragon, AND you get to give another frontliner AoA for the same slot (if you are willing to spare the sorcery points).

[Sir cryosin]

So can a warlock if they have seen a fire giant dreadnought. Could they make there pact weapon a fire tower shield?

[gfishfunk]

So why not summon a gargantuan maul in the air above enemies or a house and let it fall and crush everything below? Or use the handle of a gargantuan spear as a latter?

At my table was will keep it to a weapon suitable for the size of the summoner.

[Kodee]

At my table was will keep it to a weapon suitable for the size of the summoner.

It seems to be the common interpretation.



@JeremyECrawford @mikemearls Would a BladeLock be able to create a weapon too big for his size? Enlarged Greataxe? d12+d4? DisAdv on Att?




Jeremy Crawford
‏@JeremyECrawford Jeremy Crawford ha ritwittato Andreas
The warlock is intended to use the weapon options in chapter 5 of the Player's Handbook.


For the "ritual" part of the "wepon" pact, I dont' understand if the "Dao Maul", "Balor long sword" or "Planetar Greatsword" are also magical weapons with special abilities. I mean: inflict they extra damage? Reading MM p. 11 they should be manufactures, therefor transforming them (obviously you have to find it) as pact weapon they should make extra damage.

[Socratov]

As for weapon sizes, this is something 3.5 had right: every weapon is available to every race, no matter how great or small, however, your size as a race dictates what size weapons you can wield. Wielding weapons heavier then your size category earned you a penalty to your to-hit. Yes you could have a Greatsword wielding Halfling Barbarian.

This version I find something odd. Small races can't wield some weapons without incurring perpetual disadvantage, but nothing bars a halfling from wielding a longsword one-handed without impunity.

I think that if you are going to keep the game rules consistent, give oversized weapons the heavy property, two-handed property and rule that creatures one size category smaller then Large can only wield the weapons at disadvantage.

[Hawkstar]

So, does a Warlock who binds the longsword used by a level 8 Paladin suddenly have a weapon that deals 2d8 damage? Because that's the logic I think a lot of people are using with these monster weapons.

The minotaur uses a Greataxe. The extra d12 damage it deals comes from being a Minotaur, not from wielding a Greataxe. Likewise, the Bone Devil's spear is a d8 weapon that deals 2d8 because Monster Ability.

[Socratov]

So, does a Warlock who binds the longsword used by a level 8 Paladin suddenly have a weapon that deals 2d8 damage? Because that's the logic I think a lot of people are using with these monster weapons.

The minotaur uses a Greataxe. The extra d12 damage it deals comes from being a Minotaur, not from wielding a Greataxe. Likewise, the Bone Devil's spear is a d8 weapon that deals 2d8 because Monster Ability.

Eh, no. Unless an attack is special in any way a weapon is a weapon. Damage done by a weapon used by a creature is represented by [weapon damage dice] + [specific ability modifier]

If a creature has an additional ability to generate damage, then that is represented by the special qualities block or as a different part of description within the attack.

For instance, a paladin with the Smite ability has a weapon attack, with the special quality that he can choose to 'burn' a spellslot to add radiant damage to his attack to the value of 2d8 +1d8/lvl>1. It's not a specific weapon but a special quality. (or in the case of classes a class feature).

And the DMG has stated that if weapons are generated for bigger races/creatures that he damage is to be doubled, or even tripled (in the case of Huge).

In that case let the players have their oversized weapons at perpetual disadvantage. There is precedent for that in the PHB rules and if it lets players have fun, then so be it.

[Sir cryosin]

Eh, no. Unless an attack is special in any way a weapon is a weapon. Damage done by a weapon used by a creature is represented by [weapon damage dice] + [specific ability modifier]

If a creature has an additional ability to generate damage, then that is represented by the special qualities block or as a different part of description within the attack.

For instance, a paladin with the Smite ability has a weapon attack, with the special quality that he can choose to 'burn' a spellslot to add radiant damage to his attack to the value of 2d8 +1d8/lvl>1. It's not a specific weapon but a special quality. (or in the case of classes a class feature).

And the DMG has stated that if weapons are generated for bigger races/creatures that he damage is to be doubled, or even tripled (in the case of Huge).

In that case let the players have their oversized weapons at perpetual disadvantage. There is precedent for that in the PHB rules and if it lets players have fun, then so be it.

The problem will be power gamers. Because now you have a over sized weapon that you can still use but attacks are at disadvantage. Well advantage cancels out disadvantage. So a barbarian Reckless attack, A owl familiar, flanking rules. Knocking prone, ect, ect.... And now you have a weapon doing twice if not three or four more damage dice then other players can't get. I know this is fantasy but really a halfling can't run around swinging a sword the size of a oak tree I don't care if he has a 20 str.

[Socratov]

The problem will be power gamers. Because now you have a over sized weapon that you can still use but attacks are at disadvantage. Well advantage cancels out disadvantage. So a barbarian Reckless attack, A owl familiar, flanking rules. Knocking prone, ect, ect.... And now you have a weapon doing twice if not three or four more damage dice then other players can't get. I know this is fantasy but really a halfling can't run around swinging a sword the size of a oak tree I don't care if he has a 20 str.

I personally don't think that the image stretches the imagination more then casters do... Besides, you need to get proficient with it. For now only the bladelock can. I don't think it's that gamebreaking...

Alos, staking a preemptive disadvantage means never getting advantage. ever. Say goodby to decently critfishing. Then the issue of hitting: if you are a barbarian, and not proficient with the oversized axe even with reckless attacks you will at best (lvl 20) reach a to hit of +7. If you want to use GWM, that leaves +2. So unless you crit, AC21 is all you are going to hit, on lvl 20. Wanna hit a quite regular AC18? Well, I hope you regularly roll 16 or above...

And if you'd rather have +2d6 instead of +10 then you are not doing math right. Same goes for +1d12 and 2d8 instead of 1d10...

It might look dramatic, but it's not. It might be worse then using conventional (with proficiency and no inherent disadvantage) methods.

[Sir cryosin]

I personally don't think that the image stretches the imagination more then casters do... Besides, you need to get proficient with it. For now only the bladelock can. I don't think it's that gamebreaking...

Alos, staking a preemptive disadvantage means never getting advantage. ever. Say goodby to decently critfishing. Then the issue of hitting: if you are a barbarian, and not proficient with the oversized axe even with reckless attacks you will at best (lvl 20) reach a to hit of +7. If you want to use GWM, that leaves +2. So unless you crit, AC21 is all you are going to hit, on lvl 20. Wanna hit a quite regular AC18? Well, I hope you regularly roll 16 or above...

And if you'd rather have +2d6 instead of +10 then you are not doing math right. Same goes for +1d12 and 2d8 instead of 1d10...

It might look dramatic, but it's not. It might be worse then using conventional (with proficiency and no inherent disadvantage) methods.

That's the point the warlocks blade pact can make it were you are proficient with those over size weapons. Then all you have to do is work around disadvantage which is not that hard.

[Socratov]

That's the point the warlocks blade pact can make it were you are proficient with those over size weapons. Then all you have to do is work around disadvantage which is not that hard.

Which is to me an actual feature of the pact. Please keep in mind that you don/t get the actual proficiencies, you get to be proficient with whatever you summon from your nether region (singular! get you mind out of the gutter :smallamused:) this has its effect in dual wielding and other tactics so to be honest I don't see the problem.

when it comes to defence the bladelock needs to invest heavily if he wants to keep breathing for more then 1 round on the front line. At that point you have 2 options: be like the rogue and slip in and out in the blink of an eye, or be a glass cannon and deal massive damage at the risk of your target not being actually dead when his turn comes around. by then you are someone who not only stung, but actually hurt. And you are standing right next to him! And you look as if a slight huff and puff will blow you away. If the enemy won't try to turn you into pastrami then your DM is not trying. Being a bladelock is high risk and thus should be high reward. I find the use of this kind of weapon to be within reason and within rule of cool. Imagine a gnome Bladelockseeing a Dao swing his maul around and the following discussion:

"hey I can do that" rummages around in his extra dimensional space "It's a bit unwieldy, but I can make it work" proceeds to pummel the opposition with a maul bigger then himself

It would rank very high on my scales of Cool and Fun and thus fall under the Rules of Cool and Fun.

[Drackolus]

I somehow doubt that the writers specifically put monster abilities on EVERY instance even if they thought it. Monsters that they figured may have a reasonable chance of using a different weapon - such as a celestial - are worth putting the extra text in there. And the dmg (or was it the mm?) has a table for larger weapons too. It seems a lot of those weapon damage formulae are just flattened and compacted to save space by not putting in what would be useless information.
The mm is not intended to be a player tool. Even standard druid forms are in the back of the phb. It seems like taking advantage of developer oversight.
And a pure-class warlock wouldn't be the major issue, since they are somewhat weak already in some ways. It's the 3-warlock dips that make it scary.
That said, would I allow it? Case-by-case, probably.

[ruy343]

The pact weapon ability has two parts:

If the weapon is not a previously-owned weapon, you may summon any normal weapon to your hand that's in chapter 5 of the Player's Handbook (that's explicitly in the text).
Magic weapons you own can be transformed into your pact weapon, and can be summoned to hand thereafter.


According to the rules as written (RAW) those are the two options regarding weapons that you can create/summon with your Pact of the Blade feature. You may not summon magic items (such as a Holy Avenger) that you did not own previously (paragraph 3 implies that you have the weapon in your possession before you perform the ritual, and that you dismiss it afterwards). Additionally, you may not summon a normal (i.e non-magical) weapon not covered in chapter 5 of the PHB, so no demon weapons are allowed (see paragraph 1).

Hope that helps.