View Full Version : Rules Q&A Pact of the Blade
KyleG
2019-04-11, 10:43 PM
Can someone please clarify something:
1. I can make any weapon i want with my pact of the blade from a whip to a great axe, and it can differ each time i summon it?
2. Assuming the above if i get a longsword +2 and perform the ritual, do i thereafter have to summon a longsword to get the +2 (or other magical effects?) the next time i summon?
3.And given that dismissing your weapon doesn't require an action is there any mechanical reason i shouldn't ask my dm to have the summoning of the weapon also not take an action?
Galithar
2019-04-11, 10:49 PM
Can someone please clarify something:
1. I can make any weapon i want with my pact of the blade from a whip to a great axe, and it can differ each time i summon it?
2. Assuming the above if i get a longsword +1 and perform the ritual, do i thereafter have to summon a longsword to get the +1 (or other magical effects?) the next time i summon?
And given that dismissing your weapon doesn't require an action is there any mechanical reason i shouldn't ask my dm to have the summoning of the weapon also not take an action?
If you preform the ritual on an actual item instead of summoning one I don't believe it can be dismissed our changed. That weapons becomes your pact Weapon and must be carried around like the physical Weapon it is. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
As for summoning as a free action I would present your DM with the Eldritch Knights weapon bond to ask for it to be a bonus action instead to balance it with a similar class feature if you find the action to restricting. I personally have waived it as a free action for my hexblade though and it breaks nothing.
Misterwhisper
2019-04-11, 10:51 PM
Can someone please clarify something:
1. I can make any weapon i want with my pact of the blade from a whip to a great axe, and it can differ each time i summon it?
2. Assuming the above if i get a longsword +1 and perform the ritual, do i thereafter have to summon a longsword to get the +1 (or other magical effects?) the next time i summon?
And given that dismissing your weapon doesn't require an action is there any mechanical reason i shouldn't ask my dm to have the summoning of the weapon also not take an action?
1. You can make your summoned weapon any melee weapon. So no crossbow or anything without other invocations.
2. Yes. If you bond with a longsword +1 you may summon that sword as your pact weapon and it will keep the plus 1, however any other weapon you form is just magical not a plus 1.
Asking the dm to let you summon the weapon for less than an action is a straight power boost.
However there is no reason you can’t just summon it and keep it on you like a normal weapon. Just carry it when you can and summon it if you have to.
2. Assuming the above if i get a longsword +1 and perform the ritual, do i thereafter have to summon a longsword to get the +1 (or other magical effects?) the next time i summon?
"You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter."
I don't think you have a choice anymore.
Galithar
2019-04-11, 11:12 PM
"You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter."
I don't think you have a choice anymore.
Ah that's the line I was forgetting. So you don't have to carry it around like I mistakenly thought, but you're stuck with it from then on.
KyleG
2019-04-11, 11:33 PM
So it becomes a choice of magical effect or weapon versatility at that point...bummer.
Asking the dm to let you summon the weapon for less than an action is a straight power boost.
.
What is the power boost? Isnt it just the flavour of summoning vs drawing?
Galithar
2019-04-12, 12:06 AM
So it becomes a choice of magical effect or weapon versatility at that point...bummer.
What is the power boost? Isnt it just the flavour of summoning vs drawing?
Which you can mitigate by just saying you have it summoned at all times and just draw it as normal. Hence why I let my Warlock player do it for free. It's not a power boost. If anything it removed the Nerf of having to use an action to get your weapon ready when everyone else draws it as a free action.
Tanarii
2019-04-12, 08:17 AM
And given that dismissing your weapon doesn't require an action is there any mechanical reason i shouldn't ask my dm to have the summoning of the weapon also not take an action?Yeah, the mechanical reason is it says it takes an action. That's the limitation for the benefit you gain: a weapon that is always available, but doesn't even have to exist somewhere else until you summon it (unlike the EK's weapon).
Vogie
2019-04-12, 08:29 AM
In the Godsfall real play podcast, the Warlock can summon the weapon and attack in the same action. I believe their DM justified that since they were creating it in their hand, they could make an attack motion as they're summoning it, so the sword or whatever would appear potentially hitting the target, or the whip would appear already wrapped around something.
As a DM myself, I'd also allow summoning & attack to be a single action (not allowing an extra attack if the weapon was not summoned at the beginning of the turn).
MThurston
2019-04-12, 08:34 AM
You will need improved Pact Weapon to make anything you want.
Otherwise it's a none ranged weapon.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-12, 08:38 AM
You will need improved Pact Weapon to make anything you want.
Otherwise it's a none ranged weapon.
And it's still not hand crossbow, dart or net even with IPW.
You can designate a magical ranged weapon even without the feat, though.
Crgaston
2019-04-12, 08:44 AM
So it becomes a choice of magical effect or weapon versatility at that point...bummer.
What is the power boost? Isnt it just the flavour of summoning vs drawing?
The Improved Pact Weapon invocation gives any weapon you summon a +1 to hit and damage. So you can keep your versatility and still get the advantages of having a magic weapon, at least until the more interesting options start dropping.
Mandragola
2019-04-12, 11:06 AM
Which you can mitigate by just saying you have it summoned at all times and just draw it as normal. Hence why I let my Warlock player do it for free. It's not a power boost. If anything it removed the Nerf of having to use an action to get your weapon ready when everyone else draws it as a free action.
Except that there's no reason a warlock can't have their already-summoned weapon on them in a scabbard like everyone else and draw it as normal.
Letting a warlock create their weapon for free gives them advantages in situations where they've had to go without weapons for some reason. If they can suddenly produce a greatsword and start chopping people up immediately then it's a huge buff.
Keravath
2019-04-12, 11:53 AM
1) You can summon your pact weapon in any melee weapon you want. The weapon is considered magical. You have proficiency with it.
2) If you bind a weapon as your pact weapon then it becomes your pact weapon. Whenever you summon your pact weapon you get the one you have bound. The bound weapon can be ANY weapon. It can be melee or ranged. Once it is bound, you are proficient with it.
3) The Impoved Pact Weapon invocation makes your pact weapon a +1. (It is already magical) The weapon can be used as the spell casting focus for your warlock spells. The weapon can also take the form of a long or short bow or a light or heavy crossbow. Note that hand crossbows and slings are still excluded as possible summoned pact weapons since they are not melee and are not covered by the ones listed in improved pact weapon.
4) The pact weapon can be dismissed at any time (whether it is a summoned weapon or a bound weapon). It takes an action for a warlock to summon their pact weapon (whether it is summoned or bound). Most warlocks just walk around with their preferred form of their pact weapon sheathed so it can be drawn like any other weapon. If a DM wishes to change the rules and allow a warlock to summon their pact weapon as a bonus action of free object interaction then that is up to them but the pact weapon rules indicate it should take an action.
Keravath
2019-04-12, 11:56 AM
Except that there's no reason a warlock can't have their already-summoned weapon on them in a scabbard like everyone else and draw it as normal.
Letting a warlock create their weapon for free gives them advantages in situations where they've had to go without weapons for some reason. If they can suddenly produce a greatsword and start chopping people up immediately then it's a huge buff.
To be honest, a warlock can likely just summon up the weapon before the combat starts so it isn't really what I would call a "huge" buff. It does let the warlock with the correct invocations decide between melee and ranged at the start of a combat. However, most warlocks also have agonizing blast which is generally a better ranged option than a weapon unless the character has been built around using ranged weapons (e.g. sharpshooter) in which case they will already likely have the bow/crossbow summoned since that is what they want to use anyway.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-12, 01:05 PM
Once it is bound, you are proficient with it.
Nope. You aren't getting proficiency with the bound weapon, only with the choose-a-form option.
Bloodcloud
2019-04-12, 02:09 PM
Personally, I'd give the med armor and shield proficiency from hexblade into blade pact, and allow you to summon the whole gear with that action. And use cha with the weapon. Hexblade becomes coven pact and keep the curse.
But that is definitely homebrew.
Kadzar
2019-04-12, 03:34 PM
To be honest, a warlock can likely just summon up the weapon before the combat starts so it isn't really what I would call a "huge" buff. It does let the warlock with the correct invocations decide between melee and ranged at the start of a combat. However, most warlocks also have agonizing blast which is generally a better ranged option than a weapon unless the character has been built around using ranged weapons (e.g. sharpshooter) in which case they will already likely have the bow/crossbow summoned since that is what they want to use anyway.
I think it would probably be okay to make it so that the warlock only needs an action to change the form of the weapon, and can summon it as either a free action or a bonus actions.
Bloodcloud
2019-04-12, 03:52 PM
Nope. You aren't getting proficiency with the bound weapon, only with the choose-a-form option.
False.
"You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon"
Ergo, the bound weapon is your pact weapon. You are proficient with your pact weapon. Blade pact would be stupendously useless if you didn't get profiency with your pact weapon when you bind a magic weapon.
KyleG
2019-04-12, 04:16 PM
Except that there's no reason a warlock can't have their already-summoned weapon on them in a scabbard like everyone else and draw it as normal.
Letting a warlock create their weapon for free gives them advantages in situations where they've had to go without weapons for some reason. If they can suddenly produce a greatsword and start chopping people up immediately then it's a huge buff.
That I hadnt considered. Certainly would be an advantage on those situations.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-12, 05:20 PM
False.
"You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon"
Ergo, the bound weapon is your pact weapon. You are proficient with your pact weapon. Blade pact would be stupendously useless if you didn't get profiency with your pact weapon when you bind a magic weapon.
"You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it. You are proficient with it while you wield it."
If you bond with a magic weapon, you can't choose the form the weapon will take, and you aren't gaining proficiency. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/01/does-a-warlock-need-proficient-in-pact-weapon/)
Arathryth
2019-04-12, 06:24 PM
"You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it. You are proficient with it while you wield it."
If you bond with a magic weapon, you can't choose the form the weapon will take, and you aren't gaining proficiency. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/01/does-a-warlock-need-proficient-in-pact-weapon/)
Those are seperate sentences and not predicated on each other. It clearly states that you are proficient with your pact weapon while wielding it. If you bind a magic weapon, it becomes your pact weapon, and you get the same benefit as creating a generic weapon.
"You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter."
You also omitted the first sentence of the description you quoted above. Presumably to warp the description to fit your opinion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
"You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see*chapter 5*for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage."
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-12, 07:04 PM
You also omitted the first sentence of the description you quoted above. Presumably to warp the description to fit your opinion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
by saying presumably he edited the statement a certain way, you really aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt. and that is unnecessary.
otherwise, i agree with the rest of your interpretation
Arathryth
2019-04-12, 07:21 PM
by saying presumably he edited the statement a certain way, you really aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt. and that is unnecessary.
otherwise, i agree with the rest of your interpretation
Maybe poor choice of words on my part. I meant that it CAN be interpreted as being intentionally misleading. But I'll chalk it up to a mis-reading of the text, until proven otherwise.
But I'll chalk it up to a mis-reading of the text, until proven otherwise.
Poor wording until you click the sage advice link. Then it becomes crystal clear why the rest was omitted. So yeah, you really jumped the gun here.
EDIT: woah, the site had a brainfart on the quote origin. ><
Galithar
2019-04-12, 07:40 PM
Poor wording until you click the sage advice link. Then it becomes crystal clear why the rest was omitted. So yeah, you really jumped the gun here.
EDIT: woah, the site had a brainfart on the quote origin. ><
Sage Advice via Crawford Tweet is useless. Especially since in his tweet he says basically 'yes that's what's written, but I'm telling you what we intended' which means if you want RAW answer then you get proficiency. You are proficient with your pact Weapon while you wield it. Period. That is the written rule of the ability.
What your pact Weapon is at the time is irrelevant. If it's your pact Weapon you are proficient with it while you wield it. Oddly enough if you set it down you're suddenly not proficient anymore :P
JackPhoenix
2019-04-12, 07:54 PM
Sage Advice via Crawford Tweet is useless. Especially since in his tweet he says basically 'yes that's what's written, but I'm telling you what we intended' which means if you want RAW answer then you get proficiency. You are proficient with your pact Weapon while you wield it. Period. That is the written rule of the ability.
What your pact Weapon is at the time is irrelevant. If it's your pact Weapon you are proficient with it while you wield it. Oddly enough if you set it down you're suddenly not proficient anymore :P
You know what's weirder? If you have two longswords, you're proficient only with the one that serves as your pact weapon.
Misterwhisper
2019-04-12, 07:58 PM
You know what's weirder? If you have two longswords, you're proficient only with the one that serves as your pact weapon.
Still not as odd as the person holding a rapier in one hand and a shot sword in the other stabbing with the rapier and the. Looking at their short sword and just going, “ummm sorry can’t figure out how to stab with this thing when I attack with the other pointy thing.”
Or for years people with a quarterstaff laughing at people with spears going, “No, idiot, THIS is a polearm.”
JackPhoenix
2019-04-12, 08:11 PM
Still not as odd as the person holding a rapier in one hand and a shot sword in the other stabbing with the rapier and the. Looking at their short sword and just going, “ummm sorry can’t figure out how to stab with this thing when I attack with the other pointy thing.”
Or for years people with a quarterstaff laughing at people with spears going, “No, idiot, THIS is a polearm.”
It's not that weird... just because they are both used for thrusting doesn't mean short sword is used in the same way rapier is... much shorter reach makes difference, as does the different point of balance and the presence (or absence) of handguard. Now, if you know how to use one type of sword, you should have some general idea how to use most other types of swords, as while there are differences, many things are universal, but that's besides the point.
I still say that QS should've been in the first benefit of PAM but not the other, and vice versa for spear.
Still not as odd as the person holding a rapier in one hand and a shot sword in the other stabbing with the rapier and the. Looking at their short sword and just going, “ummm sorry can’t figure out how to stab with this thing when I attack with the other pointy thing.”
Well, you can.
There's no rule that both attacks from attack action have to be from the same hand/weapon. Since you wouldn't ask yourself that if you didn't have extra attack.
Galithar
2019-04-12, 08:45 PM
Well, you can.
There's no rule that both attacks from attack action have to be from the same hand/weapon. Since you wouldn't ask yourself that if you didn't have extra attack.
So martials below level 5 don't exist? Or they can't dual wield? Does it actually makes logical (not game balance) sense to you that you can't make a bonus action attack in that situation?
KyleG
2019-04-12, 09:20 PM
So we have established that
a) Pact of the blade - no original weapon required, can therefore manifest as any weapon from whip to battle axe.
b) Pact of the blade - if you take a magically enhanced sword (lets just say +1, with 2 poison damage) and perform the ritual you can make it vanish but from that point on it must manifest as a sword
c) the improved pact weapon does not apply to (b) as it grants a +1 to a manifested non-magical weapon eg. (a) which can now also include various ranged options.
So if we want weapon versatility you might be better NOT conducting rituals on magically enhanced swords but taking improved pact weapon to make manifest weapon magical at its core. And carry the Magically enhanced weapon as another weapon option. (or even dare i say using it for two weapon fighting (bonus action not the fighting style).
JakOfAllTirades
2019-04-12, 10:06 PM
Sage Advice via Crawford Tweet is useless. Especially since in his tweet he says basically 'yes that's what's written, but I'm telling you what we intended' which means if you want RAW answer then you get proficiency. You are proficient with your pact Weapon while you wield it. Period. That is the written rule of the ability.
What your pact Weapon is at the time is irrelevant. If it's your pact Weapon you are proficient with it while you wield it. Oddly enough if you set it down you're suddenly not proficient anymore :P
It's always been my understanding that "Rules As Intended" should serve to clarify "Rules As Written" when necessary, but Crawford seems to think that RAI should flatly contradict RAW whenever he's in the mood to crap on someone's fun.
Galithar
2019-04-12, 10:28 PM
It's always been my understanding that "Rules As Intended" should serve to clarify "Rules As Written" when necessary, but Crawford seems to think that RAI should flatly contradict RAW whenever he's in the mood to crap on someone's fun.
It should, but unfortunately it often ends up being what Crawford thought that day. Which I believe is the reason his tweets are no longer considered official WotC rulings. But that's a whole nother bag o' worms we shouldn't get into, especially not here derailing a thread :P
Bloodcloud
2019-04-12, 10:41 PM
Wait, is crawford saying having, say, a magic longsword pact weapon does not grant profiency in other longsword or that you don’t even have profiency in that magic longsword that is your pact weapon? Because former I agree, second one is the most ridiculous Sage advice opinion i have ever read. This is beyond comprehension and make non hexblade blade boon an utter waste.
Galithar
2019-04-12, 10:48 PM
Wait, is crawford saying having, say, a magic longsword pact weapon does not grant profiency in other longsword or that you don’t even have profiency in that magic longsword that is your pact weapon? Because former I agree, second one is the most ridiculous Sage advice opinion i have ever read. This is beyond comprehension and make non hexblade blade boon an utter waste.
The second is what he was saying. That if you make a physical magic weapon into your pact weapon you won't have proficiency with it, but if you summoned a same type weapon you would.
if you didn't have extra attack.
So martials below level 5 don't exist?
I'm sorry but I'm not interested in nitpicking whinings.
Lay off the coffee please.
Tanarii
2019-04-13, 01:49 AM
So martials below level 5 don't exist? Or they can't dual wield? Does it actually makes logical (not game balance) sense to you that you can't make a bonus action attack in that situation?
Martials below level 5 can "dual wield". They just attack with each weapon every other round if they aren't both light weapons.
JakOfAllTirades
2019-04-13, 03:11 AM
Wait, is crawford saying having, say, a magic longsword pact weapon does not grant profiency in other longsword or that you don’t even have profiency in that magic longsword that is your pact weapon? Because former I agree, second one is the most ridiculous Sage advice opinion i have ever read. This is beyond comprehension and make non hexblade blade boon an utter waste.
The second is what he was saying. That if you make a physical magic weapon into your pact weapon you won't have proficiency with it, but if you summoned a same type weapon you would.
This ruling is notably absent from the latest version of the PHB errata, so I consider it to be "unofficial advice" only. I also consider it to be flat wrong.
Tanarii
2019-04-13, 09:46 AM
"You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it. You are proficient with it while you wield it."
If you bond with a magic weapon, you can't choose the form the weapon will take, and you aren't gaining proficiency. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/01/does-a-warlock-need-proficient-in-pact-weapon/)
This ruling is notably absent from the latest version of the PHB errata, so I consider it to be "unofficial advice" only. I also consider it to be flat wrong.
Yeah ...not sure how someone can read it as an independent clause. Its pretty clear the free proficiency only applies to weapons created out of nothing, and that magic weapons must be whatever the warlock is proficient with themself.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-13, 11:40 AM
Yeah ...not sure how someone can read it as an independent clause. Its pretty clear the free proficiency only applies to weapons created out of nothing, and that magic weapons must be whatever the warlock is proficient with themself.
Not clear at all.
The preceeding paragraph says: summon a pact weapon, grants proficiency, you can change each time.
The magic weapon becoming pact weapon paragraph: specifies that you can't change the weapon when you summon it.
It specifically negates one ability from the general pact weapon feature. It does not mention wiping out the proficiency ability.
Tanarii, does the magic weapon pact weapon disappear if you move 5ft from it like the normal pact weapon?
Tanarii
2019-04-13, 01:34 PM
Tanarii, does the magic weapon pact weapon disappear if you move 5ft from it like the normal pact weapon?
Yes. Because that sentence says "your pact weapon", not "it". The latter refers to the weapon that takes any form per the prior sentence. The former refers to the pact weapon in general.
Otoh thanks for helping me see where the ambiguity comes from. I can see someone thinking "it" refers to "the pact weapon" in general, not the thing that takes any form per the previous sentence. :smallamused:
Chronos
2019-04-13, 09:20 PM
If you find a +1 trident or something, you can make that your pact weapon.
You can dismiss or re-create your pact weapon whenever you want.
When you re-create your pact weapon, you can make it whatever kind of melee weapon you want.
What in the rules (RAW, not RAT) does it say that you can't bond with a +1 trident, dismiss it, and then re-create it as a +1 longsword?
So we have established that
b) Pact of the blade - if you take a magically enhanced sword (lets just say +1, with 2 poison damage) and perform the ritual you can make it vanish but from that point on it must manifest as a sword
c) the improved pact weapon does not apply to (b) as it grants a +1 to a manifested non-magical weapon eg. (a) which can now also include various ranged options.
IPW doesnt just grant a +1 to non-magic weapons. If you have a magic weapon without a +1, say like Sword of Wounding, it would gain the +1. The wording:
“In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.”
So the only excluded weapons are magic weapons that already have a +1 or better.
Galithar
2019-04-13, 09:52 PM
If you find a +1 trident or something, you can make that your pact weapon.
You can dismiss or re-create your pact weapon whenever you want.
When you re-create your pact weapon, you can make it whatever kind of melee weapon you want.
What in the rules (RAW, not RAT) does it say that you can't bond with a +1 trident, dismiss it, and then re-create it as a +1 longsword?
You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest.You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.
Emphasis mine.
This part "it appears whenever you create your pact weapon" means that EVERY time you create your pact weapon this weapon appears. It doesn't say that when you create your pact weapon you may choose to make this weapon appear. It just appears every time.
Tanarii
2019-04-13, 10:20 PM
What in the rules (RAW, not RAT) does it say that you can't bond with a +1 trident, dismiss it, and then re-create it as a +1 longsword?
"You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter."
"It" in this case refers to the magic weapon you shunted into an extra dimensional space. You get the specific magica weapon back, that includes the form of the weapon.
Emphasis mine.
This part "it appears whenever you create your pact weapon" means that EVERY time you create your pact weapon this weapon appears. It doesn't say that when you create your pact weapon you may choose to make this weapon appear. It just appears every time.
The ritual turns the magic weapon into the pact weapon. In doing so, the magic weapon gains the benefits of being the pact weapon. Not some of the benefits, but it becomes the pact weapon.
Is your position that the benefits of the pact weapon don’t apply to the weapon that becomes your pact weapon? That seems to go against the language of “you can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon.” Transform being a very specific word that means “make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of” (Per Google’s dictionary).
This word being used would very much seem to me that the RAW let’s you change the magic weapon as per the abilities of the pact weapon.
Galithar
2019-04-13, 11:13 PM
The ritual turns the magic weapon into the pact weapon. In doing so, the magic weapon gains the benefits of being the pact weapon. Not some of the benefits, but it becomes the pact weapon.
Is your position that the benefits of the pact weapon don’t apply to the weapon that becomes your pact weapon? That seems to go against the language of “you can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon.” Transform being a very specific word that means “make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of” (Per Google’s dictionary).
This word being used would very much seem to me that the RAW let’s you change the magic weapon as per the abilities of the pact weapon.
I never said anything against that. I actually said exactly that. You make it your pact weapon, preventing yourself from summoning whatever you want because your pact weapon now has a definite form. You MADE the magic weapon your pact weapon. It now appears every time you summon it.
You can't change what that weapon is though. It is still a magic weapon and the description of creating a pact weapon from a magic weapon holds no rider that allowed you to transform that weapon. Otherwise creating a pact weapon from a longbow (without IPW) would mean you have to summon it as a form that is acceptable for a standard pact weapon, which is obviously a misreading if the ability.
KyleG
2019-04-14, 03:46 AM
The text is actually rather interesting.
Pact of the Blade
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it. You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to non-magical attacks and damage. Your pact weapon disappears if it is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more. It also disappears if you use this feature again, if you dismiss the weapon (no action required), or if you die.
You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weaponby performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extra-dimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter. You can't affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way. The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1-hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1-hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extra-dimensional space when the bond breaks.
Written this way it seems you are transforming the magical weapon INTO your pact weapon which itself you can choose the form of (first paragraph). If it had been written "You can transform your pact weapon into the magic weapon" then i would say that the pact weapon can therefore only be the shape of the magical weapon.
Chronos
2019-04-14, 06:58 AM
Yeah, that specific weapon is your pact weapon. Whenever you create your pact weapon, that's the one that you get, so if that specific weapon had a +1, or did extra fire damage, or whatever, you still get the +1 or the extra fire damage. In addition, whenever you create your pact weapon, you can change what kind of weapon it is, so you're changing the kind of weapon of that specific magic weapon that is your pact weapon. So it was a trident before, and now it's the same weapon, but now that weapon is a longsword. How did that happen? Magic, obviously.
You can't change what that weapon is though. It is still a magic weapon and the description of creating a pact weapon from a magic weapon holds no rider that allowed you to transform that weapon.
The fact that it transforms into the pact weapon is what allows it.
In your opinion does the word “transform” mean its static and doesn’t change? Or does it transforming mean what was a magic weapon is now changed or altered in some significant way?
Per the definition of transform, it has to be the latter.
So what was a +1 longsword transforms into your pact weapon. What benefits does a pact weapon have? We know that from the first paragraph of the ability’s description.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-14, 09:21 AM
In your opinion does the word “transform” mean its static and doesn’t change? Or does it transforming mean what was a magic weapon is now changed or altered in some significant way?
Per the definition of transform, it has to be the latter.
it doesn't HAVE to be the latter, that requires me at accept that becoming a pact weapon (gaining summoning, auto-proficiency) isn't enough of a change.
given "it appears when you create your pact weapon thereafter", the Oathbow appears when i create my pact weapon thereafter. this is a specific that overrules the general "pact weapon is whatever you want".
I summon my Oathbow as a club sounds odd. moreover, does it use longbow base damage (1d8) or club base damage (1d4)?
Keravath
2019-04-14, 09:41 AM
The start of the pact weapon rule says that you create it and that is disappears when it is more than 5’ From you for more than a minute when you dismiss it.
When you perform the ritual binding a specific weapon as your pact weapon it is NOT created and dismissed .. instead you shunt it to an extra dimensional space. In addition, if you die the bound weapon appears beside you while the created weapon does not.
All of the additional descriptions of extra dimensional spaces would not be required if the bound pact weapon could be created in whatever firm the warlock wanted.
The question then becomes what features of being a pact weapon extend to a bound weapon. It can’t be created and dismissed, it can only be stored in an extra dimensional space. This would indicate that the form would not change. However, other than that, since the bound weapon is your pact weapon then you should be considered proficient with that specific weapon (not the class of weapons).
Anyway, that’s how I would read it but given the ways folks like to split sentences up and assign the meaning of pronouns, there are likely other interpretations.
it doesn't HAVE to be the latter, that requires me at accept that becoming a pact weapon (gaining summoning, auto-proficiency) isn't enough of a change.
given "it appears when you create your pact weapon thereafter", the Oathbow appears when i create my pact weapon thereafter. this is a specific that overrules the general "pact weapon is whatever you want".
I summon my Oathbow as a club sounds odd. moreover, does it use longbow base damage (1d8) or club base damage (1d4)?
So then what is transforming during the ritual if nothing about the Oathbow actual changes?
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-14, 09:52 AM
So then what is transforming during the ritual if nothing about the Oathbow actual changes?
as i said, gains summoning, gains auto-proficiency, gains 'can't be stolen', gains +1 if you have IPW.
not saying your interpretation is wrong, and I am curious about it in practice. i will allow this for a while and see how folks feel about it.
as i said, gains summoning, gains auto-proficiency, gains 'can't be stolen', gains +1 if you have IPW.
not saying your interpretation is wrong, and I am curious about it in practice. i will allow this for a while and see how folks feel about it.
So what about the sword is transforming? It being able to be summoned is an ability of the Warlock, not the sword. The proficiency is also an ability of the Warlock.
The RAW, however, states the weapon transforms into the pact weapon. How is the weapon transforming if not physically changing?
JackPhoenix
2019-04-14, 02:09 PM
So what about the sword is transforming? It being able to be summoned is an ability of the Warlock, not the sword. The proficiency is also an ability of the Warlock.
If it's the warlock's ability, why isn't he proficient with any other weapon of the same type and why can't he summon any other weapon?
The RAW, however, states the weapon transforms into the pact weapon. How is the weapon transforming if not physically changing?
It magically changes from normal magical weapon into pact weapon. Nobody said the transformation is physical.
KyleG
2019-04-14, 02:33 PM
So what about the sword is transforming? It being able to be summoned is an ability of the Warlock, not the sword. The proficiency is also an ability of the Warlock.
The RAW, however, states the weapon transforms into the pact weapon. How is the weapon transforming if not physically changing?
I want the literal raw to be true BUT, I can see the argument that the weapon is transforming by becoming this summonable thing, its nature is changing.
That being said Im now thinking that the weapon changes into the pact weapon but with its properties. So an oathbows text states ranged attack so wouldn't apply if you used the pact weapon as a sword. But summon it as a bow and its good to go.
On the other hand the sun blades text doesn't preclude ranged weapons so its +2 attack and damage rolls could be applied to the pact weapon summoned as a crossbow. I wouldn't think its high properties would apply.
How does one submit such questions to sage advice?
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-14, 03:16 PM
So what about the sword is transforming? It being able to be summoned is an ability of the Warlock, not the sword. The proficiency is also an ability of the Warlock.
The RAW, however, states the weapon transforms into the pact weapon. How is the weapon transforming if not physically changing?
If a fighter has a long sword of flame, can he hide it in a pocket dimension and resummon it? no, not an ability of a fighter.
If a blade pact warlock picks up a long sword of flame, can she hide it in a pocket dimension and resummon it? no, not an ability of a warlock
can a blade pact warlock summon a short sword out of thin air? yes, it is an ability of a warlock
can a blade pact warlock summon a short sword of wounding out of thin air? no, not an ability of a warlock.
can a blade pact warlock bond with a spear of wounding after a 1 hour ritual, then summon it from a pocket dimension? yes, it is an ability of a warlock
is a blade pact warlock proficient with the whip it summoned out of thin air? yes, it is an ability of a warlock
is a blade pact warlock proficient with the whip of warning it just stole from an enemy? no, not an ability of a warlock.
is a blade pact warlock proficient with a whip of warning after a 1 hour ritual? yes, it is an ability of a warlock
we agree that a warlock is neither automatically proficient with any magic weapon nor can she summon any magic weapon from a pocket dimension (even if she possesses that weapon).
after it is transformed into her pact weapon, the warlock do can those 2 things.
now where we disagree:
can a blade pact warlock bond with a spear of wounding after a 1 hour ritual, then summon it as a dagger of wounding?
I contend, no, because the bonded magic weapon appears when "you create your pact weapon thereafter"
your turn, how is adding the ability to summon and be proficient with a specific magic weapon is NOT a transformation?
how is a dagger with the properties of an Oathbow is still an Oathbow?
If it's the warlock's ability, why isn't he proficient with any other weapon of the same type and why can't he summon any other weapon?
It is the ability of the Warlock, hence why they have the abilities without the weapon, and regardless of which weapon they bond.
But, sure, if you want to play that game and go with “it’s the sword’s ability”, well then how come the sword can’t summon or dismiss on its own? How come other characters don’t gain proficiency when they hold it?
Because it’s the ability of the Warlock, as shown in the PHB, under the class “Warlock;” as opposed to under the class “Weapon.”
It magically changes from normal magical weapon into pact weapon. Nobody said the transformation is physical.
So what is transforming about the weapon? Is it an emotional transformation? And as we know it transformed into the pact weapon, why doesn’t it get the abilities of being a pact weapon?
jaappleton
2019-04-14, 03:33 PM
This thread if effin’ painful to read...
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-14, 03:43 PM
This thread if effin’ painful to read...
all RAW says this threads are.
DracoKnight
2019-04-14, 03:47 PM
I would like to point out that on D&D Beyond (the official digital toolset for 5e, coded under the guidance of the 5e design team), when you mark that a magic weapon - say a Flame Tongue, for the sake of example - is your pact weapon, you begin adding your proficiency bonus to your attack rolls, regardless of which patron you have and whether or not you're proficient with the weapon outside it being your pact weapon.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-14, 03:48 PM
So what is transforming about the weapon? Is it an emotional transformation? And as we know it transformed into the pact weapon, why doesn’t it get the abilities of being a pact weapon?
asked and answered.
transformed from a magic weapon without any pact weapon abilities to a magic weapon with [some] pact weapon abilities.
it doesn't get all of the abilities because the specific rule (this weapon appears when it is created) overrides the general pact weapon abilities.
I would like to point out that on D&D Beyond (the official digital toolset for 5e, coded under the guidance of the 5e design team), when you mark that a magic weapon - say a Flame Tongue, for the sake of example - is your pact weapon, you begin adding your proficiency bonus to your attack rolls, regardless of which patron you have and whether or not you're proficient with the weapon outside it being your pact weapon.
interesting, i assumed you would have to do that manually.
KyleG
2019-04-14, 03:58 PM
This thread if effin’ painful to read...
Who knew when I started this lol.
Can someone please clarify something:
1. I can make any weapon i want with my pact of the blade from a whip to a great axe, and it can differ each time i summon it?
2. Assuming the above if i get a longsword +2 and perform the ritual, do i thereafter have to summon a longsword to get the +2 (or other magical effects?) the next time i summon?
3.And given that dismissing your weapon doesn't require an action is there any mechanical reason i shouldn't ask my dm to have the summoning of the weapon also not take an action?
1. Confirmed. Sweet.
3. Answered for now. To discuss more with players and dm.
2. Contentious...a question for the sages perhaps, but I submit that the wording of the magical weapon may determine how this works in practice, despite the pact weapon raw.
The other topic being addressed here is proficiency. As a hex blade its not so relevant to me but certainly its generating some interesting discussion.
DracoKnight
2019-04-14, 04:17 PM
interesting, i assumed you would have to do that manually.
Technically you do. You toggle “on” that it’s your Pact Weapon, and once you do, it gives you proficiency with said weapon, no matter what the weapon is.
MeeposFire
2019-04-14, 04:22 PM
Personally I would be hesitant on using a character builder as evidence. It could be because that is how the designers told them it should work or it could be an unintentional interaction of how they designed the builder to work.
DracoKnight
2019-04-14, 04:33 PM
Personally I would be hesitant on using a character builder as evidence. It could be because that is how the designers told them it should work or it could be an unintentional interaction of how they designed the builder to work.
Normally I would agree with you, except that this is the official digital toolset for 5e. If something wasn't supposed to work that way, they would've changed it. They update with every Sage Advice and Errata.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-14, 04:41 PM
What would be the downside, the horrible outcome, of "erring" on the side of the player getting a bit of extra utility and cool out of the combination of "powers" in question here?
What would be the downside, the horrible outcome, of "erring" on the side of the player getting a bit of extra utility and cool out of the combination of "powers" in question here?
Whenever the GM makes a ruling in favor of a player, that's more fun for him.
Whenever you state that RAW is ambivalent, and the GM can interpret how he sees fit, you empower him.
When you try to weasel out with weak wisdom to force feed your fantasy, you put your GM in a weak spot.
There's nothing worse than munchkins going forum-shopping until they get the answer they want and pressure their GM. I'm sure most of you have seen that happen. Dishonesty should always be stumped out.
Even if most players agree with SA that your pact weapon is locked out in a single shape, you can still ask you GM to give you a little freebie. He'll judge if there's a downside or not.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-14, 05:33 PM
What would be the downside, the horrible outcome, of "erring" on the side of the player getting a bit of extra utility and cool out of the combination of "powers" in question here?
not sure there is a horrible downside. i am curious to try it next time I DM. but at my table, i would consider it a house rule.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-14, 06:30 PM
I would like to point out that on D&D Beyond (the official digital toolset for 5e, coded under the guidance of the 5e design team), when you mark that a magic weapon - say a Flame Tongue, for the sake of example - is your pact weapon, you begin adding your proficiency bonus to your attack rolls, regardless of which patron you have and whether or not you're proficient with the weapon outside it being your pact weapon.
D&D Beyond is endorsed by WotC, but it's 3rd party site with no actual connection to any of 5e designers. It's also full of various 3rd party stuff.
DracoKnight
2019-04-14, 06:42 PM
D&D Beyond is endorsed by WotC, but it's 3rd party site with no actual connection to any of 5e designers. It's also full of various 3rd party stuff.
I am aware of all of this. However, it remains that it IS the official 5e Digital toolset.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-14, 06:46 PM
I am aware of all of this. However, it remains that it IS the official 5e Digital toolset.
That doesn't mean it's 100% reliable. The designers themselves aren't, so why should a 3rd party website?
JakOfAllTirades
2019-04-14, 08:21 PM
What would be the downside, the horrible outcome, of "erring" on the side of the player getting a bit of extra utility and cool out of the combination of "powers" in question here?
You get to read a bunch of JC fanboys' forum posts copying & pasting his tweets to prove that you're playing D&D BADLY.
It happened to me, and it totally ruined my whole day. Took me like, 25 whole seconds to ignore list all of them, and it was a serious inconvenience. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-14, 10:01 PM
You cannot create a ranged weapon without an invocation from XGE, but you can bond to ranged weapon
So let's pretend the magic weapon could change form every time you summon it.
if you bonded with an Oathbow, you would need improved Pact weapon just to summon it as a bow.
if you bonded with your +1 hand crossbow, you can't actually summon it as a +1 hand crossbow.
MThurston
2019-04-15, 06:31 AM
Yeah, that specific weapon is your pact weapon. Whenever you create your pact weapon, that's the one that you get, so if that specific weapon had a +1, or did extra fire damage, or whatever, you still get the +1 or the extra fire damage. In addition, whenever you create your pact weapon, you can change what kind of weapon it is, so you're changing the kind of weapon of that specific magic weapon that is your pact weapon. So it was a trident before, and now it's the same weapon, but now that weapon is a longsword. How did that happen? Magic, obviously.
100% false
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-15, 07:54 AM
100% false
Welcome to 5e. This edition is different from previous editions. I recommend reading the phb and xge to learn about the warlock. Reading the rules will help you become a good player, and one day a Good DM. Good gaming friend
asked and answered.
transformed from a magic weapon without any pact weapon abilities to a magic weapon with [some] pact weapon abilities.
So the sword doesn’t actually change at all then. So not really a “transformation” per the definition of the word, as you describe the process.
it doesn't get all of the abilities because the specific rule (this weapon appears when it is created) overrides the general pact weapon abilities.
“You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see the Weapons section for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Your pact weapon disappears if it is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more. It also disappears if you use this feature again, if you dismiss the weapon (no action required), or if you die.”
So here, we learn all about what a pact weapon can do. It can be summoned, the Warlock can choose the form it takes, the Warlock is proficient with it while wielding it, the pact weapon counts as magical, and will disappear if it’s more than 5’ for a minute.
These are the abilities a pact weapon has.
Now we move on to the part about bonding a weapon:
“You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon.”
Here’s that line again. The magic weapon transforms into a pact weapon. So whatever weapon you bond, it transforms into your pact weapon. Now we can go reread the prior two paragraphs to see what abilities a pact weapon has, which this weapon has transformed to be.
Again, the weapon transforms into a pact weapon, and therefore, has the abilities of a pact weapon.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-15, 09:59 AM
This thread if effin’ painful to read...
Agreed.
Sheesh.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-15, 10:09 AM
snip
i do like how you don't quote the whole text of the transformation, leaving out the specific rule that limits the general pact weapon ability and then claiming there is no rule. very tricksy.
i will use your technique, ask questions instead of answering them:
summon my Oathbow as a club, does it use longbow base damage (1d8) or club base damage (1d4)?
how is adding the ability to summon and be proficient with a specific magic weapon is NOT a transformation?
how is a dagger with the properties of an Oathbow is still an Oathbow?
how is a +1 hand crossbow a +1 hand crossbow if you can't summon it as a hand crossbow?
since base pact weapon doesn't transform into anything, how does transforming a magic weapon into a pact weapon mean it has to transform into different shapes?
This thread if effin’ painful to read...
why is it painful to read?
MThurston
2019-04-15, 11:36 AM
Welcome to 5e. This edition is different from previous editions. I recommend reading the phb and xge to learn about the warlock. Reading the rules will help you become a good player, and one day a Good DM. Good gaming friend
I have read it many times.
It does not say at all that you can re-forge a magical weapon into anything you want.
It clearly states that you can make a magical weapon your pact weapon. It does not say that you can then change that weapon into anything you want.
If so you could make that weapon a whip and give it to your whip user to use because magic whips are way rare.
It's a good try though. Power gaming at its best.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-15, 11:43 AM
snip.
you said 100% false.
Chronos said:
that specific weapon is your pact weapon - true
if that specific weapon:
had a +1, you still get the +1 - true
did extra fire damage you still get the extra fire damage -true
so you're changing the kind of weapon of that specific magic weapon that is your pact weapon. - false
so 3 true statements and 1 false statement. that is closer to 25% false.
you didn't actually explain your view, so either i take you literally or assume you are just being confrontational.... i now see you were just confrontational.
of course, if you had actually read the thread you would notice that for once, you and i have the same interpretation (now that you have actually stated your view)
MThurston
2019-04-15, 12:11 PM
you said 100% false.
Chronos said:
that specific weapon is your pact weapon - true
if that specific weapon:
had a +1, you still get the +1 - true
did extra fire damage you still get the extra fire damage -true
so you're changing the kind of weapon of that specific magic weapon that is your pact weapon. - false
so 3 true statements and 1 false statement. that is closer to 25% false.
you didn't actually explain your view, so either i take you literally or assume you are just being confrontational.... i now see you were just confrontational.
of course, if you had actually read the thread you would notice that for once, you and i have the same interpretation (now that you have actually stated your view)
100% false statement.
This wasn't a question and answer session. There wasn't question number 1, question 2.
100% false statement.
You don't get points for being part right.
What would be the downside, the horrible outcome, of "erring" on the side of the player getting a bit of extra utility and cool out of the combination of "powers" in question here?
Can't have that. It would go against precedent!
patchyman
2019-04-15, 12:37 PM
your turn, how is adding the ability to summon and be proficient with a specific magic weapon is NOT a transformation?
how is a dagger with the properties of an Oathbow is still an Oathbow?
I agree with you, but here is my question: a warlock has the Blade Pact but not IPW. He cannot summon a longbow and is not proficient in it.
He finds an Oathbow and designates it his pact weapon. Ok, now when he summons it he is proficient with the Oathbow (since it is his pact weapon) even though he would not be able to create one and he doesn’t have IPW.
Seems wrong, and as a DM I would probably rule that he can only bond with a weapon he could otherwise summon.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-15, 12:48 PM
I agree with you, but here is my question: a warlock has the Blade Pact but not IPW. He cannot summon a longbow and is not proficient in it.
He finds an Oathbow and designates it his pact weapon. Ok, now when he summons it he is proficient with the Oathbow (since it is his pact weapon) even though he would not be able to create one and he doesn’t have IPW.
Seems wrong, and as a DM I would probably rule that he can only bond with a weapon he could otherwise summon.
JC originally said the RAI was that you could only bond with summonable weapons, but relented that RAW you could bond with a ranged weapon.
so your ruling would be legit
I contend that he can summon (and be proficient in) the magic weapon and only that weapon in that form. So he can summon that Oathbow and only as a longbow. he isn't creating the bow from pure magic, just summoning it (i am using inconsistent language vs the PHB).
JakOfAllTirades
2019-04-15, 02:17 PM
why is it painful to read?
Rules lawyering is bad; inept rules lawyering is even worse, and deliberately inept rules lawyering for powergaming purposes is... oh, just see my sig. I'm not about to try explaining Pact of the Blade RAW to anyone who doesn't actually want to understand it. That's a non-starter.
This isn't directed at you specifically, NaughtyTiger. But others participating in this "discussion" are doing so in bad faith and I consider engaging with them a waste of time.
KyleG
2019-04-15, 03:40 PM
I think I will concede that a pact weapon that takes the traits but not the form of a magical weapon is probably not the intended design note necessarily practical. Unless I settle on a weapon style I'm inclined to keep any magical weapon found as a sheathed option and continue to get flexibility from the pact weapon. Ill also try to get the dm to rule the pact weapon summoning as the same as drawing a weapon not an action once per combat.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-15, 03:55 PM
Funny thought... add to IPW the ability to bind and "carry" extra enchanted weapons equal to your Ability modifier (CHA by default, other if DM allows INTlocks or whatever).
I agree with you, but here is my question: a warlock has the Blade Pact but not IPW. He cannot summon a longbow and is not proficient in it.
He finds an Oathbow and designates it his pact weapon. Ok, now when he summons it he is proficient with the Oathbow (since it is his pact weapon) even though he would not be able to create one and he doesn’t have IPW.
Seems wrong, and as a DM I would probably rule that he can only bond with a weapon he could otherwise summon.
Makes sense to me. He's proficient with that Oathbow and only that Oathbow, never any other bow. He's bonded to it. That's the point. He's not getting away with anything.
Chronos
2019-04-15, 06:06 PM
So, just what part of the rules is it that says that a magic item bonded to be a pact weapon doesn't get all of the pact weapon benefits?
jaappleton
2019-04-15, 06:10 PM
Rules lawyering is bad; inept rules lawyering is even worse, and deliberately inept rules lawyering for powergaming purposes is... oh, just see my sig. I'm not about to try explaining Pact of the Blade RAW to anyone who doesn't actually want to understand it. That's a non-starter.
This isn't directed at you specifically, NaughtyTiger. But others participating in this "discussion" are doing so in bad faith and I consider engaging with them a waste of time.
Fist bump.
Mother ****ing fist bump of the highest order is required here.
I first bumped my monitor, I hope you-
MY SCREEN IS CRACKED
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-15, 06:10 PM
So, just what part of the rules is it that says that a magic item bonded to be a pact weapon doesn't get all of the pact weapon benefits?
"[the magic weapon] appears when you create your pact weapon thereafter",
i understand the interpretation that says the pact weapon can change form, but based on my reading and parsing, the above phrase cuts that out.
otherwise, what does that phrase add?
serious question, for your viewpoint, if that sentence ISN'T in the paragraph, how does your intepretation change.
deliberately inept rules lawyering for powergaming purposes is...
It comes down to wanting the board's approval because they can't put their big boys pants and negociate with their GM.
Wnat's the point of asking us to yield, we're not the one they have to deal with?
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-15, 06:36 PM
It comes down to wanting the board's approval because they can't put their big boys pants and negociate with their GM.
Wnat's the point of asking us to yield, we're not the one they have to deal with?
to be fair, i have been swayed a couple of times...
Rules lawyering is bad; inept rules lawyering is even worse, and deliberately inept rules lawyering for powergaming purposes is... oh, just see my sig. I'm not about to try explaining Pact of the Blade RAW to anyone who doesn't actually want to understand it. That's a non-starter.
This isn't directed at you specifically, NaughtyTiger. But others participating in this "discussion" are doing so in bad faith and I consider engaging with them a waste of time.
Must be lonely staying so high up from everyone else. Here’s a suggestion: if reading the thread is painful, don’t read it. That seems like the most logical sense to me, but obviously I’m a degree or three lower than you; you clearly have a reason to put yourself through such pain and to stomach posting too.
"[the magic weapon] appears when you create your pact weapon thereafter",
i understand the interpretation that says the pact weapon can change form, but based on my reading and parsing, the above phrase cuts that out.
otherwise, what does that phrase add?
serious question, for your viewpoint, if that sentence ISN'T in the paragraph, how does your intepretation change.
So if you have a Flametongue, the Flametongue appears but the Warlock chooses the form. That’s the way to interpret that line that keeps the abilities of the pact weapon valid.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-15, 09:53 PM
So if you have a Flametongue, the Flametongue appears but the Warlock chooses the form. That’s the way to interpret that line that keeps the abilities of the pact weapon valid.
Sure, and the only allowed form is "whatever form it had before you bonded with it".
i do like how you don't quote the whole text of the transformation, leaving out the specific rule that limits the general pact weapon ability and then claiming there is no rule. very tricksy.
i will use your technique, ask questions instead of answering them:
Oh, you mean that technique where I quoted the rules to back up my point? Oh, wait, that’s not what you want to do? Oh, you want to ignore that post and cited rules, and would rather not respond to those valid points and instead try a different approach?
Sure. (Though by all means if you actually want to deal with my points and the cited RAW in my previous post, by all means do so.)
summon my Oathbow as a club, does it use longbow base damage (1d8) or club base damage (1d4)?
The answer here is “ask your DM”, but me, personally, per the RAW if you summon a club, it’s a club.
how is adding the ability to summon and be proficient with a specific magic weapon is NOT a transformation?
What did the weapon transform into? And why does it only get some abilities of a pact weapon? Why some and not all?
how is a dagger with the properties of an Oathbow is still an Oathbow?
In that it’s an Oathbow that was transformed into a dagger using forbidden lore.
how is a +1 hand crossbow a +1 hand crossbow if you can't summon it as a hand crossbow?
In that it’s a +1 hand crossbow that was transformed into a pact weapon. If that bond is broken, the +1 crossbow will appear at the Warlock’s feet.
since base pact weapon doesn't transform into anything, how does transforming a magic weapon into a pact weapon mean it has to transform into different shapes?
A pact weapon (including, I assume, your “base pact weapon”) is whatever it’s summoned as. When you bond a weapon and transform it into a pact weapon, it gains that quality: that is, like any other pact weapon, it takes the chosen melee weapon form.
Sure, and the only allowed form is "whatever form it had before you bonded with it".
Not according to the RAW of what a pact weapon is capable of, but feel free to ignore that aspect of the rules.
KyleG
2019-04-15, 10:27 PM
Not according to the RAW of what a pact weapon is capable of, but feel free to ignore that aspect of the rules.
I think you also need to consider the text of the weapons too. A property of a ranged magical weapon specifically includes language around RANGED attacks which cant be made with weapons such as swords. And by extension you could therefore take all the properties of it into your pact weapon, and when you start picking the,properties too take it will lead to another problem itself. What if there are negative effects? Do we ignore some of those too if we feel like it.
As nice as taking that cool crossbow bonus and giving it to your dagger might be its starting to get a bit on the nose.
Not according to the RAW of what a pact weapon is capable of, but feel free to ignore that aspect of the rules.
I think you need to re-read that rule, carefully. Because "only allowed form" follows RAW to a T.
Chronos
2019-04-16, 06:02 AM
But it doesn't say that a bonded magic weapon can't change form, and that's something that the default pact weapon can do. Specific only trumps general when the specific exists.
MThurston
2019-04-16, 06:45 AM
But it doesn't say that a bonded magic weapon can't change form, and that's something that the default pact weapon can do. Specific only trumps general when the specific exists.
Face Palm. "It doesn't say you can't." Is a 5 year olds response to wanting to get their way.
Example of abusing this BS.
Our archer wants a +2 bow and we have this +2 dagger.
Let the Warlock bond with it and then change it into a bow when he summons it. Then give it to the archer.
I really want a +1 whip.
No problem. Use this +1 dagger and give it to the warlock.
If this is the case then Warlocks would be selling magical weapons left and right.
Need a +3 Pike? I got it for you. Will only take an hour to make. I'm very skilled. Any design you want in it? I can do that also.
"The rules don't say I can't put my own design on it!"
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 06:51 AM
I asked Chronos a specific questions, he doesn't answer.
Chronos: what does that phrase add? what changes if that phrase isn't there?
Rsp29 selectively quoting rules, answering rules questions with questions
to be fair he did answer some of them, but punted on the hard one about the rule.
Rsp29: actually nothing, i am no longer interested in trying to coax an discussion out of you.
Face Palm. "It doesn't say you can't." Is a 5 year olds response to wanting to get their way.
Example of abusing this BS.
Our archer wants a +2 bow and we have this +2 dagger.
Let the Warlock bond with it and then change it into a bow when he summons it. Then give it to the archer.
I really want a +1 whip.
No problem. Use this +1 dagger and give it to the warlock.
If this is the case then Warlocks would be selling magical weapons left and right.
Need a +3 Pike? I got it for you. Will only take an hour to make. I'm very skilled. Any design you want in it? I can do that also.
So you’re thinking the abuse is the Warlock uses their class ability to help other characters?
First, there’s nothing wrong with using abilities in this way, and it tends to promote team work.
Second, you do realize there’s more to the ability than the change? Like you can only have one pact weapon at a time, so no you couldn’t do all of what you claim, at least not at the same time.
There’s also the fact that the pact weapon must stay within 5’ of the Warlock or the pact weapon vanishes after a minute.
Combine that with the fact that it takes an action to summon and your basically using the Warlock in a really suboptimal way.
Round 1: BM Fighter holds their action to pick up pike. Warlock uses action to summon pike and drops it by the BM fighter.
So two characters use their action to give the fighter a +1 or so? At the cost of the Warlock now having 0 ability to use one of their class features; and you think this is abuse and over powered?
“The rules don't say I can't put my own design on it!"
Oddly enough, the rules say that the pact weapons often do have their own unique look and style.
Rsp29 selectively quoting rules, answering questions with questions
to be fair he did answer some of them, but punted on the hard ones about the rules.
especilly tricksy by rewording my questions into something that fits his narrative
Rsp29: actually nothing, i am no longer interested in trying to coax an discussion out of you.
So we went from a discussion to you trying to convince other readers of these posts that I’m trying to trick you? Not sure what that’s all about.
Pretty sure I responded to all of your points with valid rules quotes. I guess you feel selecting the valid and appropriate rules is “selectively quoting rules” (it is, but that’s what one is supposed to do when citing a reference: you don’t cite the entire PHB, just the relevant part), and decided that the only way you can “win” this debate is to not be involved.
jaappleton
2019-04-16, 07:20 AM
Must be lonely staying so high up from everyone else. Here’s a suggestion: if reading the thread is painful, don’t read it. That seems like the most logical sense to me, but obviously I’m a degree or three lower than you; you clearly have a reason to put yourself through such pain and to stomach posting too.
Oh, knock it off. Seriously.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 07:29 AM
So we went from a discussion to you trying to convince other readers of these posts that I’m trying to trick you? Not sure what that’s all about.
Pretty sure I responded to all of your points with valid rules quotes. I guess you feel selecting the valid and appropriate rules is “selectively quoting rules” (it is, but that’s what one is supposed to do when citing a reference: you don’t cite the entire PHB, just the relevant part), and decided that the only way you can “win” this debate is to not be involved.
1) the tricksy line was because i thought you edited one of my quotes. i realized that you just made a formatting error. so i immediately removed it. i am sorry that i didn't realize my glitch sooner.
2) you did not respond to all of my points with valid rules quotes. this was intentional. everytime i asked about the specific rule you bypassed it. you even quoted me asking chronos about it, and didn't answer it.
you keep acting like we are just making up a rule that says you can't change the form of the magic weapon.
everyone on the "can't change the form of a magic weapon" side points to the same line. we can see that you and chronos don't acknowledge that line.
MThurston
2019-04-16, 07:52 AM
So you’re thinking the abuse is the Warlock uses their class ability to help other characters?
First, there’s nothing wrong with using abilities in this way, and it tends to promote team work.
Second, you do realize there’s more to the ability than the change? Like you can only have one pact weapon at a time, so no you couldn’t do all of what you claim, at least not at the same time.
There’s also the fact that the pact weapon must stay within 5’ of the Warlock or the pact weapon vanishes after a minute.
Combine that with the fact that it takes an action to summon and your basically using the Warlock in a really suboptimal way.
Round 1: BM Fighter holds their action to pick up pike. Warlock uses action to summon pike and drops it by the BM fighter.
So two characters use their action to give the fighter a +1 or so? At the cost of the Warlock now having 0 ability to use one of their class features; and you think this is abuse and over powered?
Oddly enough, the rules say that the pact weapons often do have their own unique look and style.
Power Gamer.
1. DMs can do anything they want.
2. Everyone should understand the rule as written means that the +2 dagger that you want to make your pact weapon doesn't change into a +2 bow, pike, whip or anything else.
Just stop with the BS. I understand you want to power game. It just isn't going to fly. You are not going to get everyone to magically believe it works this way.
2) you did not respond to all of my points with valid rules quotes. this was intentional. everytime i asked about the specific rule you bypassed it. you even quoted me asking chronos about it, and didn't answer it.
you keep acting like we are just making up a rule that says you can't change the form of the magic weapon.
everyone on the "can't change the form of a magic weapon" side points to the same line. we can see that you and chronos don't acknowledge that line.
How do these posts not count as a response to that?
In that it’s an Oathbow that was transformed into a dagger using forbidden lore.
In that it’s a +1 hand crossbow that was transformed into a pact weapon. If that bond is broken, the +1 crossbow will appear at the Warlock’s feet.
A pact weapon (including, I assume, your “base pact weapon”) is whatever it’s summoned as. When you bond a weapon and transform it into a pact weapon, it gains that quality: that is, like any other pact weapon, it takes the chosen melee weapon form.
This one was literally in response to that line:
So if you have a Flametongue, the Flametongue appears but the Warlock chooses the form. That’s the way to interpret that line that keeps the abilities of the pact weapon valid.
Basically, and since you think the above posts didn’t answer your question: my take on it is the form of a pact weapon is determined when its summoned. If you bond a magic weapon, that weapon is summoned, but nothing states it loses the “form determined when summoned” property of a pact weapon.
So, if you have a Flametongue longsword bonded and shunted away, when you summon it, you can chose it’s form and decide you want a Flametongue greatsword or a club.
MThurston
2019-04-16, 08:00 AM
You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon.
You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting IT into an extradimensional space, and IT appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter. You can’t affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way.
The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1-hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1-hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extradimensional space when the bond breaks.
"IT" Not something else. IT = the weapon and not something else.
It's exclusive and not inclusive.
Very easy to understand unless you want to cheat.
Of course you can always ask your DM to allow you to cheat.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 08:05 AM
How do these posts not count as a response to that?
simple, because those posts aren't related to that.
for a while, i believed you were actually sincere.
i no longer do.
edit: holy cow! the ignore feature is awesome!
edit edit: aw but now i can't watch the train wreck.
edit edit edit: i miss it already, fine.
simple, because those posts aren't related to that.
for a while, i believed you were actually sincere.
i no longer do.
edit: holy cow! the ignore feature is awesome!
edit edit: aw but now i can't watch the train wreck.
One way to avoid valid points...
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 08:36 AM
simple, because those posts aren't related to that.
One way to avoid valid points...
i agree completely, ignoring my questions is a way to avoid valid points
i know what you meant, but since you have yet to actually address the question, yeah, you did avoid valid points.
(i am sooo glad i prefer the watching trainwreck, i might have missed your "accidental" confession.)
You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon.
You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting IT into an extradimensional space, and IT appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter. You can’t affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way.
The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1-hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1-hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extradimensional space when the bond breaks.
"IT" Not something else. IT = the weapon and not something else.
It's exclusive and not inclusive.
Very easy to understand unless you want to cheat.
Of course you can always ask your DM to allow you to cheat.
You can try to insult me all you want, or guess at my motives. That doesn’t change the RAW, which states when summoning a pact weapon, the Warlock can chose its form.
You can not like this ability of the Warlock, but it is an ability.
A bonded weapon becomes a pact weapon. When summoned, it appears. This doesn’t change that it’s form changes.
Look at Find Steed:
“You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed, creating a long-lasting bond with it. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the steed takes on a form that you choose, such as a Warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a Mastiff. (Your DM might allow Other Animals to be summoned as steeds.)...
...You can also dismiss your steed at any time as an action, causing it to disappear. In either case, casting this spell again summons the same steed, restored to its hit point maximum...”
So here is a very similar ability. You can summon a Steed if a variety of forms, chosen at the time of the summoning. It can also, similarly to pact weapon, be sent away and recalled. When recalled, similarly to pact weapon, the same Steed appears.
Now, when looking at this, it’s important to keep in mind that “Steed” is used as a generic term that is inclusive of various types of animals (a Warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a Mastiff, specifically. Likewise, in the pact weapon feature “weapon” is inclusive of those listed in the PHB table.
So when you cast Find Steed anytime after you’ve already cast it once and selected a form for the steed, can you still choose the form it takes? Yes: you’re resumnoning the same Steed, but not necessarily the same form. You’re summoning that celestial, fey or fiend; like you’re summoning that magic weapon with pact magic; but you can still chose the form.
i agree completely, ignoring my questions is a way to avoid valid points
i know what you meant, but since you have yet to actually address the question, yeah, you did avoid valid points.
(i am sooo glad i prefer the watching trainwreck, i might have missed your "accidental" confession.)
Ah, so you were lying about ignoring me. Seems apropos...
If you want to actually address what you think I haven’t explained, by all means do so. If you want to just insult people, I guess that’s one way to spend your time on this site.
Oh, knock it off. Seriously.
Um, or what??
I’m glad you feel the need to defend those who post not to add to the conversation, but to insult and dismiss those who actually decide to use this site to discuss the game of 5e. By all means, throw in your support that we should all ridicule and denigrate those having a discussion we disagree with.
No one forces anyone to read posts or threads. When I find a thread that doesn’t interest me, I move on to the next one; I don’t feel the need to post about how painful it is to read or insult people who choose to contribute to that thread.
Obviously others take a different approach.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 08:48 AM
Ah, so you were lying about ignoring me. Seems apropos...
not lying, as i pointed out in my comments, i am a glutton for punishment, and unignored you... it lasted for all of 3 minutes.
If you want to actually address what you think I haven’t explained, by all means do so.
i think it's the other way around, if you want to answer my questions that I think (and you know) you haven't answered, by all means do so.
i mean, i have addressed them, that is why i asked for your interpretation.
if you want me to list them out AGAIN, then no.
and here is why: i firmly believe you know what i am talking about, because you specifically excluded those questions in your rebuttal. you don't accidentally skip the key question 4 times. it is the one line of PHB that you refuse to quote.
If you want to just insult people, I guess that’s one way to spend your time on this site.
i learned it from you dad!
MThurston
2019-04-16, 08:55 AM
You can try to insult me all you want, or guess at my motives. That doesn’t change the RAW, which states when summoning a pact weapon, the Warlock can chose its form.
You can not like this ability of the Warlock, but it is an ability.
A bonded weapon becomes a pact weapon. When summoned, it appears. This doesn’t change that it’s form changes.
Look at Find Steed:
“You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed, creating a long-lasting bond with it. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the steed takes on a form that you choose, such as a Warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a Mastiff. (Your DM might allow Other Animals to be summoned as steeds.)...
...You can also dismiss your steed at any time as an action, causing it to disappear. In either case, casting this spell again summons the same steed, restored to its hit point maximum...”
So here is a very similar ability. You can summon a Steed if a variety of forms, chosen at the time of the summoning. It can also, similarly to pact weapon, be sent away and recalled. When recalled, similarly to pact weapon, the same Steed appears.
Now, when looking at this, it’s important to keep in mind that “Steed” is used as a generic term that is inclusive of various types of animals (a Warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a Mastiff, specifically. Likewise, in the pact weapon feature “weapon” is inclusive of those listed in the PHB table.
So when you cast Find Steed anytime after you’ve already cast it once and selected a form for the steed, can you still choose the form it takes? Yes: you’re resumnoning the same Steed, but not necessarily the same form. You’re summoning that celestial, fey or fiend; like you’re summoning that magic weapon with pact magic; but you can still chose the form.
Do you know the definition of exclusive and inclusive?
If you do then we wouldn't be here now and to why people are saying it's painful to read.
You can MAKE your pact weapon and doing so you can make it into whatever the rules say you can for that.
OR
You can make a real weapon your Pact Weapon.
You however can not mingle the two together.
It's exclusive.
This isn't 5 year old logic where we say if Zuts are Mutts and Zogs are Mutts then all Zuts and Zogs are Mutts.
You can either create your own pact weapon OR you can make a real weapon your Pact Weapon.
With Bonding you could take your family sword and make it your pact weapon. With IPW that regular sword just became a +1 weapon and magical.
If you ask me that is way cool. It however doesn't mean you can now change that sword to a whip. Even though you can just make a +1 whip with IPW.
Which however will be your arguement to the DM to allow it.
If I can just make a +1 weapon anyways, why not just let me do it to the magical weapon I already have?
Because it's not in the rules.
Let me go even further.
My Warlock has a sentient weapon. I can't change it's looks or put it into a dimensional space. The reasons are right in the rules as written. Not interpreted as wanted.
Nice strew horse. Can you make a real steed your bonded steed to summon and to unsummon?
When you can we will talk again.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-16, 08:59 AM
If I were just going to rule on this based on what seems reasonable and fair, instead of trying to parse the written text to death... I'd probably just say that the Warlock (with the right build) can bind the weapon, and that the weapon becomes one of their options when they summon a weapon, but they can still summon other weapons. If they do summon the weapon they bound, then they get the weapon they bound, and can't change its form.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 09:02 AM
So when you cast Find Steed anytime after you’ve already cast it once and selected a form for the steed, can you still choose the form it takes? Yes: you’re resumnoning the same Steed, but not necessarily the same form. You’re summoning that celestial, fey or fiend; like you’re summoning that magic weapon with pact magic; but you can still chose the form.
I disagree with this interpretation, too. for the same reason.
I read it as, once you have summoned your gift from your deity, that's it. It is what it is.
Otherwise why does it matter that it's the same steed?
What does that statement add?
What would change without it?
maybe you were sincere and just blind to the question all 4 times.
MThurston
2019-04-16, 09:03 AM
If I were just going to rule on this based on what seems reasonable and fair, instead of trying to parse the written text to death... I'd probably just say that the Warlock (with the right build) can bind the weapon, and that the weapon becomes one of their options when they summon a weapon, but they can still summon other weapons. If they do summon the weapon they bound, then they get the weapon they bound, and can't change its form.
The rules don't say you can't do this.
You can have your magical weapon be your bonded weapon and then use hexblade agility to make a new weapon each day.
You could then use the hexblade weapon as your cha based attack and then your magical bonded weapon using Str or Dex.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 09:08 AM
The rules don't say you can't do this.
100% false... (see, that is just straight up confrontational)
and here is why i say that:"[that magic weapon] appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter."
so when i create my pact weapon, i want to summon a great axe, but no that danged venom dagger show up thereafter.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-16, 09:21 AM
The rules don't say you can't do this.
You can have your magical weapon be your bonded weapon and then use hexblade agility to make a new weapon each day.
You could then use the hexblade weapon as your cha based attack and then your magical bonded weapon using Str or Dex.
1 - Perhaps you missed the part where I said I didn't care about parsing the rules, only about what would be reasonable and fair.
2 - My comment as written doesn't say anything about CHA, DEX, or STR.
3 - "you can have your magical weapon be your bonded weapon and then use hexblade agility (sic) to make a new weapon" is not a contradiction of my comment.
4 - Perhaps you missed the part where I said I didn't care about parsing the rules, only about what would be reasonable and fair.
However, if I were to comment on the issue of CHA or not-CHA with the bound weapon... if the Warlock's player invested the Pact, and the Boon, to get those abilities together, I'd have ZERO objection to the bound magical weapon being used with CHA instead of STR or DEX. Compared to the issues with letting the character use their "charmingness" to wield a weapon in the first place, and the issues with CHA being the main stat for what feels like half the game, this little edge case is NOTHING, a quibble, a waste of time to debate.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 09:25 AM
This thread if effin’ painful to read...
at this point, i am contributing to the pain. but i just can't stop.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-16, 09:30 AM
at this point, i am contributing to the pain. but i just can't stop.
Honestly, this sort of thread is so annoying that I should just walk away when I realize it's going to be another 50 pages of people yelling past each other in defense of their precious pet parsings of rules that are often written with deliberate or negligent vagueness.
For some reason this time I felt the need to poke them all in the forehead by saying "I don't care about yet another petty RAW "debate", I would just do whatever seemed fair and move on."
MThurston
2019-04-16, 09:32 AM
1 - Perhaps you missed the part where I said I didn't care about parsing the rules, only about what would be reasonable and fair.
2 - My comment as written doesn't say anything about CHA, DEX, or STR.
3 - "you can have your magical weapon be your bonded weapon and then use hexblade agility (sic) to make a new weapon" is not a contradiction of my comment.
4 - Perhaps you missed the part where I said I didn't care about parsing the rules, only about what would be reasonable and fair.
However, if I were to comment on the issue of CHA or not-CHA with the bound weapon... if the Warlock's player invested the Pact, and the Boon, to get those abilities together, I'd have ZERO object to the bound magical weapon being used with CHA instead of STR or DEX. Compared to the issues with letting the character use their "charmingness" to wield a weapon in the first place, and the issues with CHA being the main stat for what feels like half the game, this little edge case is NOTHING, a quibble, a waste of time to debate.
You are talking like a DM and not like you understand the rules.
Hexblade ability and bounded weapons are two different animals.
Hexblade ability allows it to be a pact weapon and allows the cha stat to be used for hits and damage.
You can still have bounded weapon that is a pact weapon.
So a Warlock could have a real magic weapon bounded and summon it. Then make another weapon with the hexblade ability a pact weapon.
Hence two separate pact weapons, one using cha and the other using Str or Dex.
You however can not change a real weapon into another real weapon.
No where in the rules does it say you can.
The arguement here is if IPW already gives you any +1 weapon, why can't you just change that real weapon the same way?
Because the rules say you can't.
But as a DM feel free to use your fair way of thinking. At my table and at my current DMs table it works as written. Not as wanted.
Tanarii
2019-04-16, 09:37 AM
at this point, i am contributing to the pain. but i just can't stop.
Stop Engaging With Trolls After Page Three, Lest Ye Become One.
Yes, that applies to me too, on both sides at different times.
Millstone85
2019-04-16, 09:51 AM
I am surprised nobody has quoted the SAC yet. Unlike the tweets, it is an official document.
If a warlock uses Pact of the Blade to bond with a magic weapon, does that weapon have to be a melee weapon, and can the warlock change the weapon’s form?
The warlock’s Pact of the Blade feature (PH, 107–8) lets you create a melee weapon out of nothing. Whenever you do so, you determine the weapon’s form, choosing from the melee weapon options in the Weapons table in the Player’s Handbook (p. 149). For example, you can create a greataxe, and then use the feature again to create a javelin, which causes the greataxe to disappear.
You can also use Pact of the Blade to bond with a magic weapon, turning it into your pact weapon. This magic weapon doesn’t have to be a melee weapon, so you could use the feature on a +1 longbow, for instance. Once the bond is formed, the magic weapon appears whenever you call your pact weapon to you, and you can’t change the magic weapon’s form when it appears. For example, if you bond with a flame tongue (longsword) and send the weapon to an extradimensional space, the weapon comes back as a longsword when you summon it. You don’t get to turn it into a club. Similarly, if you bond with a dagger of venom, you can’t summon it as a maul; it’s always a dagger.
The feature allows the conjuring forth of a melee weapon, yet we allow more versatility when it comes to magic weapons. We didn’t want a narrow focus in this feature to make a warlock unhappy when a variety of magic weapons appear in a campaign. Does this versatility extend outside the melee theme of the feature? It sure does, but we’re willing to occasionally bend a design concept if doing so is likely to increase a player’s happiness.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-16, 10:02 AM
You are talking like a DM and not like you understand the rules.
Hexblade ability and bounded weapons are two different animals.
Hexblade ability allows it to be a pact weapon and allows the cha stat to be used for hits and damage.
You can still have bounded weapon that is a pact weapon.
So a Warlock could have a real magic weapon bounded and summon it. Then make another weapon with the hexblade ability a pact weapon.
Hence two separate pact weapons, one using cha and the other using Str or Dex.
You however can not change a real weapon into another real weapon.
No where in the rules does it say you can.
The arguement here is if IPW already gives you any +1 weapon, why can't you just change that real weapon the same way?
Because the rules say you can't.
But as a DM feel free to use your fair way of thinking. At my table and at my current DMs table it works as written. Not as wanted.
There are different arguments going on in this thread, then, and maybe you think I'm saying something I have not said.
1) We appear to agree that the pact weapon is an option, and that the Warlock can create a different, non-magical, "conjured" weapon if they choose.
2) As I noted earlier, I would not allow the real bound weapon to be transformed in any way, it is what it is, and can't be made into another weapon by the Warlock's magic. We appear to agree on that as well.
3) If I were going to give IPW an added benefit, it would be the ability bind additional real weapons and then choose between them. That would be purely "homebrew" on my part, however.
4) Where we appear to actually disagree is on whether the switch to the CHA modifier can be applied to the bound real magical weapon. I see absolutely nothing in the printed rules that gives a clear answer either way, and I'm going to err on the side of reasonable, fair, and fun -- and I see enough in the text to more than justify that opinion.
For reference, with emphasis added to the relevant parts:
Hex Warrior
At 1st level, you acquire the training necessary to effectively arm yourself for battle. You gain proficiency with medium armor, shields, and martial weapons.
The influence of your patron also allows you to mystically channel your will through a particular weapon. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon, you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls. This benefit lasts until you finish a long rest. If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type.
Pact of the Blade
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see the Weapons section for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Your pact weapon disappears if it is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more. It also disappears if you use this feature again, if you dismiss the weapon (no action required), or if you die.
You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter. You can’t affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way. The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1-hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1-hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extradimensional space when the bond breaks.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-16, 10:04 AM
I am surprised nobody has quoted the SAC yet. Unlike the tweets, it is an official document.
Frankly, and bluntly, the SAC just gets it wrong on the part about only being able to summon the bound weapon -- and no, I don't care about its "status".
The part about not changing the form of the bound weapon is fine -- it's the restriction about not being able to summon a different, non-magical, normal pact weapon as you could before the binding ritual took place, while leaving the bound weapon tucked away in the extradimensional space that's just silly. Why would the ritual remove options and constrain the Warlock to a single weapon?
I am surprised nobody has quoted the SAC yet. Unlike the tweets, it is an official document.
When you want to 1984* reading comprehension, you sure won't quote anything that will end the confusion.
*That's five and a half 360, enough to make sure you'll stay dizzy a long time.
MThurston
2019-04-16, 10:13 AM
The influence of your patron also allows you to mystically channel your will through a particular weapon. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon, you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls. This benefit lasts until you finish a long rest. If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type.
( OK, I would have to say this. If you touched your real weapon and used this feature and then conjured a weapon, then both weapons would use the cha mod. But it for Pact of the Blade. The other parts wouldn't get this. )
But it would have to be a weapon you are proficient in.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-16, 10:16 AM
This hexblade ability spells it out clearly. One weapon!
The influence of your patron also allows you to mystically channel your will through a particular weapon. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon, you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls. This benefit lasts until you finish a long rest. If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type.
And? What does that have to do with which weapons you can summon, or which weapons you can "touch" between long rests?
MThurston
2019-04-16, 10:21 AM
And? What does that have to do with which weapons you can summon, or which weapons you can "touch" between long rests?
I fixed my statement.
It matters a good amount.
First you have to be Pact of the Blade.
Second the real weapon you would have to have proficiency in.
Third the second weapon would have to be conjured.
Forth: This has nothing to do with the belief that bounding with a real weapon gives you the ability to change it's form when bringing it from the extra dimentional space.
Aimeryan
2019-04-16, 10:24 AM
Read up to like page 4 then couldn't do so anymore. The issue you all are having here is one of identity; when is object XYZ no longer object XYZ? When the form changes? When the material changes? When some other property changes (perhaps magical enchantments)?
Lets say Bob is wielding his greatsword in battle. During a particularly chaotic exchange his greatsword goes flying out of his hands. Thankfully, Bill's greatsword is lying nearby, next to Bill's body (aww). Bob picks up the greatsword. Is it the same weapon? Why not? What if the construction is exactly the same (design, material choice, weight, etc.). What makes it a different weapon?
So later on in the fight Bob manages to pick his own greatsword back up. He gets into a violent series of parries and gets a nick - some material is lost and the form has changed slightly. Is it the same weapon?
For some more reading on the topic consider Identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)) and Ship of Theseus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus).
The argument that Chronos, Rsp29a, et al. are putting forth is that even if the form changes, it is still the same weapon. Consider that many objects can change form and still be recognised as the same object - a book opens and closes, a cloak changes shape as it moves with a person's body, a torch's flame dances with the currents of the air. Going into fiction (or not, as toy model's exist), Transformers are the very epitome of something changing form yet still carrying the same identity. Likewise, and perhaps more pertinent here:
Shardblades in the Stormlight series are weapons that can be summon after being bonded to. Non-dead versions, like Syl, can change form - yet are still considered the same weapon.
Essentially, the reading is that weapon XYZ with properties A, B, C can be transformed into a Pact Weapon. Weapon XYZ still retains properties A, B, C, but can change form because that is one of the benefits being a Pact Weapon entails.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 10:25 AM
Stop Engaging With Trolls After Page Three, Lest Ye Become One.
i like the page 3 caveat... that made me chuckle
I am surprised nobody has quoted the SAC yet. Unlike the tweets, it is an official document.
oh, snap, i wish i had read that earlier.
actually, i am glad i didn't. i got to that conclusion on my own, so i am not a sheep, right?
Constructman
2019-04-16, 10:25 AM
The influence of your patron also allows you to mystically channel your will through a particular weapon. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon, you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls. This benefit lasts until you finish a long rest. If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type.
( OK, I would have to say this. If you touched your real weapon and used this feature and then conjured a weapon, then both weapons would use the cha mod. But it for Pact of the Blade. The other parts wouldn't get this. )
But it would have to be a weapon you are proficient in.
Why are you talking about Hex Warrior when the point in contention is the Pact of the Blade?
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-16, 10:29 AM
Forth: This has nothing to do with the belief that bounding with a real weapon gives you the ability to change it's form when bringing it from the extra dimentional space.
We agree on that completely ("that" being the question of whether the bound weapon can be transformed into another weapon, with or without IPW, and the answer being "NO").
MThurston
2019-04-16, 10:33 AM
Read up to like page 4 then couldn't do so anymore. The issue you all are having here is one of identity; when is object XYZ no longer object XYZ? When the form changes? When the material changes? When some other property changes (perhaps magical enchantments)?
Lets say Bob is wielding his greatsword in battle. During a particularly chaotic exchange his greatsword goes flying out of his hands. Thankfully, Bill's greatsword is lying nearby, next to Bill's body (aww). Bob picks up the greatsword. Is it the same weapon? Why not? What if the construction is exactly the same (design, material choice, weight, etc.). What makes it a different weapon?
So later on in the fight Bob manages to pick his own greatsword back up. He gets into a violent series of parries and gets a nick - some material is lost and the form has changed slightly. Is it the same weapon?
For some more reading on the topic consider Identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)) and Ship of Theseus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus).
The argument that Chronos, Rsp29a, et al. are putting forth is that even if the form changes, it is still the same weapon. Consider that many objects can change form and still be recognised as the same object - a book opens and closes, a cloak changes shape as it moves with a person's body, a torch's flame dances with the currents of the air. Going into fiction (or not, as toy model's exist), Transformers are the very epitome of something changing form yet still carrying the same identity. Likewise, and perhaps more pertinent here:
Shardblades in the Stormlight series are weapons that can be summon after being bonded to. Non-dead versions, like Syl, can change form - yet are still considered the same weapon.
Essentially, the reading is that weapon XYZ with properties A, B, C can be transformed into a Pact Weapon. Weapon XYZ still retains properties A, B, C, but can change form because that is one of the benefits being a Pact Weapon entails.
No it does not. Nice try on the transformers. It's a toy truck that turns into a toy man. It doesn't however change from a toy man to a toy train. It changes into a toy truck.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 10:44 AM
Lets say Bob is wielding his greatsword in battle. During a particularly chaotic exchange his greatsword goes flying out of his hands. Thankfully, Bill's greatsword is lying nearby, next to Bill's body (aww). Bob picks up the greatsword. Is it the same weapon? Why not? What if the construction is exactly the same (design, material choice, weight, etc.). What makes it a different weapon?
yes it is different.
Bob's sword still exists, and exists independently from Bill's sword.
Just like when another Bandit shows up to fight Bob, that Bandit is not Bill because we already killed Bill.
Object permanence
So later on in the fight Bob manages to pick his own greatsword back up. He gets into a violent series of parries and gets a nick - some material is lost and the form has changed slightly. Is it the same weapon?
Yes it is the same weapon because of object permanence.
However, a nick in the blade is very different from that weapon suddenly being able to shoot arrows.
Moreover, "they" bounced between 2 arguments:
magicweapon-pactweapon doesn't change form when it is summoned as a different form
magicweapon-pactweapon can change form cuz it is just a boring, general pactweapon
Constructman
2019-04-16, 10:45 AM
Frankly, and bluntly, the SAC just gets it wrong on the part about only being able to summon the bound weapon -- and no, I don't care about its "status".
The part about not changing the form of the bound weapon is fine -- it's the restriction about not being able to summon a different, non-magical, normal pact weapon as you could before the binding ritual took place, while leaving the bound weapon tucked away in the extradimensional space that's just silly. Why would the ritual remove options and constrain the Warlock to a single weapon?
You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter. You can’t affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way. The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1-hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1-hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extradimensional space when the bond breaks.
Going by the RAW text alone, there is no provision that allows a Warlock to do that you describe. The text can be read as saying that bonding with an actual weapon replaces the Warlock's ability to create weapons out of thin air. The SAC is not in contradiction with the PHB on this matter. You're free to change it for your table, but trying to dismiss it as an official source outright is disingenuous, and frankly just reeks of arrogance.
Example: Hao Zhengqing, a prince-in-exile of Shou Lung and a Hexblade Warlock sworn to the Raven Queen starts with no bonded magical weapon. With his Pact of the Blade feature, he can use his action to create a pact weapon in his empty hand. In his specific case, the weapon is formed from "liquid shadow" and raven feathers that coalesce into a mockery of the style of weapon he is imitating.
During the campaign, Zhengqing returns home to they and claim his birthright as the Crown Prince only to discover that Shou Lung underwent a dynastic change qhile he was gone and he no longer has any claim to the throne. Disgruntled, he settles for taking back the previous Imperial House's ceremonial sword, which happens to be a Blade of the Medusa. After dealing with the petrification curse, he performs the ritual to make it his Pact Weapon. It appears whenever he creates his pact weapon thereafter. As much as he may have liked glaives amd halberds before, he can't make it anymore; the moment he performs his gesture to summon his Pact Weapon, the Medusa Blade is shunted out of its exteadimensional space and into his hand. The Blade of the Medusa is now his Pact Weapon; the Pact Weapon no longer exists in a state of flux that can be shaped into whatever.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 10:45 AM
No it does not. Nice try on the transformers. It's a toy truck that turns into a toy man. It doesn't however change from a toy man to a toy train. It changes into a toy truck.
astrotrain would like to speak to you about that...
Going by the RAW text alone,
i can help with this one, as MaxKillJoy explained earlier, (he even repeated it and bolded it)
"Perhaps you missed the part where I said I didn't care about parsing the rules, only about what would be reasonable and fair. "
Aimeryan
2019-04-16, 10:54 AM
yes it is different.
Bob's sword still exists, and exists independently from Bill's sword.
Just like when another Bandit shows up to fight Bob, that Bandit is not Bill because we already killed Bill.
Object permanence
Yes it is the same weapon because of object permanence.
However, a nick in the blade is very different from that weapon suddenly being able to shoot arrows.
Moreover, "they" bounced between 2 arguments:
magicweapon-pactweapon doesn't change form when it is summoned as a different form
magicweapon-pactweapon can change form cuz it is just a boring, general pactweapon
So... you agree that it can be read as being the same weapon with a change of form? You seem to agree that an object has identity outside of just its form, so it would seem to preclude you agree that a change of form does not negate the object retaining its identity.
Constructman
2019-04-16, 11:12 AM
i can help with this one, as MaxKillJoy explained earlier, (he even repeated it and bolded it)
"Perhaps you missed the part where I said I didn't care about parsing the rules, only about what would be reasonable and fair. "
This specifically was what I was taing umbrage at:
Frankly, and bluntly, the SAC just gets it wrong on the part about only being able to summon the bound weapon -- and no, I don't care about its "status".
Which I don't understand. From what I've seen, y'all want Crawford's head on a pike. I know that he has (or has had) a habit of tweeting off the cuff, but I assume the stuff that makes it into the compendium has been given sober second thought. And frankly, it's been an extremely helpful resource for me. But then I go on ENWorld or GiantITP and see people rioting in the forums over it.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 11:21 AM
So... you agree that it can be read as being the same weapon with a change of form? You seem to agree that an object has identity outside of just its form, so it would seem to preclude you agree that a change of form does not negate the object retaining its identity.
i agree that a purely cosmetic change does not negate the object retaining its identity.
i do not agree that an Oathbow summoned as an axe is the same weapon, nor is it an Oathbow.
i do not agree that the rules allow you to summon a magicweapon-pactweapon as any other weapon.
i said as much in what you quoted. i am grateful that you didn't drag this out into a long slow slippery slope argument, though.
I keep seeing inferences that you need Improved Pact Weapon to make the Pact weapon magical. That's not accurate. The Pact itself already makes the weapon magical for purposes of overcoming resistance. Improved Pact Weapon just adds further benefits.
Aimeryan
2019-04-16, 11:26 AM
i agree that a purely cosmetic change does not negate the object retaining its identity.
i do not agree that an Oathbow summoned as an axe is the same weapon, nor is it an Oathbow.
i said as much in what you quoted.
Then you would be in the group of philosophers that see form as defining for identity; the real point being made here is that no everyone sees it like that, hence, for them a weapon can change form and still be the same weapon. Which means, for them, there is no conflict with a magic weapon changing its form when summoned as a pact weapon.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 11:36 AM
Then you would be in the group of philosophers that see form as defining for identity; the real point being made here is that no everyone sees it like that, hence, for them a weapon can change form and still be the same weapon. Which means, for them, there is no conflict with a magic weapon changing its form when summoned as a pact weapon.
Ah, but I am also in the group of text readers that explicitly and repeatedly asks, what does this phrase mean and how does it affect the rest of the text.
For instance if you remove the bolded part from find steed, "casting this spell again summons the same steed" does it change the spell?
i have asked the same question 6 times now (different versions), it has been answered 0 times.
the irony is the people who choose "form doesn't change even when it changes" won't answer the question "if an ability description changes, does the ability change?"
Aimeryan
2019-04-16, 12:08 PM
Ah, but I am also in the group of text readers that explicitly and repeatedly asks, what does this phrase mean and how does it affect the rest of the text.
For instance if you remove the bolded part from find steed, "casting this spell again summons the same steed" does it change the spell?
i have asked the same question 6 times now (different versions), it has been answered 0 times.
the irony is the people who choose "form doesn't change even when it changes" won't answer the question "if an ability description changes, does the ability change?"
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, however, I can state that I am also unlikely to answer that particularly question - it just doesn't really interest me.
MThurston
2019-04-16, 12:14 PM
Ah, but I am also in the group of text readers that explicitly and repeatedly asks, what does this phrase mean and how does it affect the rest of the text.
For instance if you remove the bolded part from find steed, "casting this spell again summons the same steed" does it change the spell?
i have asked the same question 6 times now (different versions), it has been answered 0 times.
the irony is the people who choose "form doesn't change even when it changes" won't answer the question "if an ability description changes, does the ability change?"
I have my issues with find steed and it doesn't change anything in the hexblade abilities. So it's mute what find steed does with the regard to conjuring weapons.
patchyman
2019-04-16, 12:28 PM
Makes sense to me. He's proficient with that Oathbow and only that Oathbow, never any other bow. He's bonded to it. That's the point. He's not getting away with anything.
Except that this makes the other restrictions in Pact of the Blade hard to understand. If becoming proficient with any weapon, ranged or heavy or otherwise only requires purchasing a Moon-touched pike (which is considered a common magical item), why include the restriction at all?
How useful is IPW if you can obtain half the functionality just by bonding to a weapon?
If the intention was for warlocks to bypass weapon prof requirements through bonding to a weapon, why require bonding to a *magic* weapon?
Certain people already find Hexblades somewhat cheesy. Why aren’t we seeing a bunch of Hexblades armed with pikes abusing PAM?
It seems to me that the intention behind bonding to a magical weapon was so that they would not be left behind in campaigns that handed out +1, +2 or +3 weapons, not that warlocks could ignore weapon proficiencies.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-16, 01:06 PM
1)If becoming proficient with any weapon, ranged or heavy or otherwise only requires purchasing a Moon-touched pike (which is considered a common magical item), why include the restriction at all?
2)How useful is IPW if you can obtain half the functionality just by bonding to a weapon?
...
4) If the intention was for warlocks to bypass weapon prof requirements through bonding to a weapon, why require bonding to a *magic* weapon?
(1)I believe the underlying basis for his interpretation is (at least my interpretation is):
the magic weapon becomes your only pact weapon, and cannot change to a different weapon.
Thus by bonding with a moon-touched pike, you are proficient in it, but your pact weapon will only ever be in the form of a pike.
(2)If your weapon never changes shape, then IPW loses some of its luster; however,
it may still provide +1 damage/toHit
you can use the pike as a focus
(4)for your last point, consider flipping it around...
maybe the intention is for warlocks to be proficient with their pact weapon, so you need to bond with your magic weapon for it to become your pactweapon so that you are proficient with it...
i am speaking for me, not Pex, so that isn't quite fair to either of you.
MThurston
2019-04-16, 01:10 PM
With IPW PAM/Sentinel Warlocks are possible. The issue is thatbyou can not start put of the gate with it.
You have to wait until IPW at level 3.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-16, 04:17 PM
The rules don't say you can't do this.
You can have your magical weapon be your bonded weapon and then use hexblade agility to make a new weapon each day.
You could then use the hexblade weapon as your cha based attack and then your magical bonded weapon using Str or Dex.
You can use the bonded weapon with Cha too. Hex Warrior states that "If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type." Hexblade weapon is NOT pact weapon by default, though, meaning you can't summon it unless it's magical and you perform the pact weapon ritual on it.
So you can potentially have 2 Cha-based weapons, one from Hex Warrior, another from PotB.
With IPW PAM/Sentinel Warlocks are possible. The issue is thatbyou can not start put of the gate with it.
You have to wait until IPW at level 3.
Why do you need Improved Pact Weapon? Just by having the Pact you can make a polearm, be proficient, and it counts as magical.
KyleG
2019-04-16, 06:50 PM
Ipw allows the weapon as focus is the only real gain If you aren't wanting to make a pact ranged weapon
Arathryth
2019-04-16, 10:14 PM
Why do you need Improved Pact Weapon? Just by having the Pact you can make a polearm, be proficient, and it counts as magical.
I think he's referring to the Pact of the Blade feature, which Warlocks can choose at lvl 3. Improved Pact Weapon Invocation has a requirement of lvl 5.
Daghoulish
2019-04-16, 10:22 PM
I think he's referring to the Pact of the Blade feature, which Warlocks can choose at lvl 3. Improved Pact Weapon Invocation has a requirement of lvl 5.
Improved Pact Weapon doesn't have a level requirement. It's only requirement is having the Pact of the Blade boon, Thirsting blade has a requirement of level 5.
You can MAKE your pact weapon and doing so you can make it into whatever the rules say you can for that.
OR
You can make a real weapon your Pact Weapon.
You however can not mingle the two together.
Actually, that’s exactly what the ability lets you do. If pact weapon let’s you do X, and bonding a weapon let’s you “transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon.” Then the bonded weapon can do X.
Why? Because it’s now your pact weapon.
MThurston
2019-04-17, 07:04 AM
I think he's referring to the Pact of the Blade feature, which Warlocks can choose at lvl 3. Improved Pact Weapon Invocation has a requirement of lvl 5.
Yes Pact of the Blade. My mistake.
MThurston
2019-04-17, 07:06 AM
Actually, that’s exactly what the ability lets you do. If pact weapon let’s you do X, and bonding a weapon let’s you “transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon.” Then the bonded weapon can do X.
Why? Because it’s now your pact weapon.
Sorry, it does not. (IT) is the magic weapon. It goes to an extra dimensional space and IT can be summoned. It's not conjured.
Chronos
2019-04-17, 07:56 AM
A few points:
First, why are people talking about Hexblades? The question in dispute here applies to all warlocks with the Blade Pact boon, regardless of patron. It's all right there in the Players' Handbook.
Second, all this talk of powergaming reminds me of that guy back in 3rd edition who thought that it was powergaming to let spellcasters cast summoning spells, and houseruled that if you try to "cheat" by casting a summoning spell, then Orcus appears and eats you. I'm not trying to powergame; I'm just trying to argue that a class's abilities that are given to them in the book work like the book says they do.
Third, yes, by RAW, a warlock can bond to a magic weapon that's the wrong type for anyone in the party to use effectively, change its form to something more useful, un-bond it, and hand it to a party member. And yes, that's silly. It would be perfectly reasonable to houserule that when a weapon gets un-bound, it reverts to its original form.
As for what determines the "identity" of a weapon, would it help if we consider an intelligent weapon? If there's any question what weapon it is, you can just ask it. Before you bond with it, you ask the weapon "What weapon are you?", and it says "I'm Blackrazor". Then you bond with it, re-summon it as a glaive (because you have Polearm Master), and ask it again, and it still says "I'm Blackrazor", even though it's not a sword any more. It's still the same weapon. Form doesn't determine identity, and in fact, a world like D&D wouldn't make sense if it did, because D&D worlds are packed to the gills full of creatures and things that are changed into different forms.
MThurston
2019-04-17, 08:10 AM
A few points:
First, why are people talking about Hexblades? The question in dispute here applies to all warlocks with the Blade Pact boon, regardless of patron. It's all right there in the Players' Handbook.
Second, all this talk of powergaming reminds me of that guy back in 3rd edition who thought that it was powergaming to let spellcasters cast summoning spells, and houseruled that if you try to "cheat" by casting a summoning spell, then Orcus appears and eats you. I'm not trying to powergame; I'm just trying to argue that a class's abilities that are given to them in the book work like the book says they do.
Third, yes, by RAW, a warlock can bond to a magic weapon that's the wrong type for anyone in the party to use effectively, change its form to something more useful, un-bond it, and hand it to a party member. And yes, that's silly. It would be perfectly reasonable to houserule that when a weapon gets un-bound, it reverts to its original form.
As for what determines the "identity" of a weapon, would it help if we consider an intelligent weapon? If there's any question what weapon it is, you can just ask it. Before you bond with it, you ask the weapon "What weapon are you?", and it says "I'm Blackrazor". Then you bond with it, re-summon it as a glaive (because you have Polearm Master), and ask it again, and it still says "I'm Blackrazor", even though it's not a sword any more. It's still the same weapon. Form doesn't determine identity, and in fact, a world like D&D wouldn't make sense if it did, because D&D worlds are packed to the gills full of creatures and things that are changed into different forms.
No that is not how it works and if you ask a weapon who it is, it's sentient and you can't send it into an extra dimensional space.
RAW is very clear. IT is exclusive. It is not inclusive. If you send IT into a extra dimensional space, IT will be summoned when you call for IT.
If you are talking conjure, then you can conjure anything you want.
You are trying to melt together summon and conjure and it's just not correct.
Please stop reading rules as wanted.
KyleG
2019-04-17, 08:18 AM
Not to mention (again) that you cant change the text of a magical weapons features just because you have summoned it in a different form. You cant summon Oathbow back as a sword and expect it to have those properties. It specifically states things like "ranged attack" "nocking an arrow" if you cant do/use these features what makes it ok to grab other features that might be less defined. Imagine if it said "causes 5 necrotic damage". Is it suggested you can get that feature just not the rest? That makes no sense. Unfortunately it just doesnt seem logical when you start playing thru specific examples.
Oathbow
Requires Attunement
When you nock an arrow on this bow, it whispers in Elvish, "Swift defeat to my enemies." When you use this weapon to make a ranged Attack, you can, as a Command phrase, say, "Swift death to you who have wronged me." The target of your Attack becomes your Sworn Enemy until it dies or until dawn seven days later. You can have only one such Sworn Enemy at a time. When your Sworn Enemy dies, you can choose a new one after the next dawn.
When you make a ranged Attack roll with this weapon against your Sworn Enemy, you have advantage on the roll. In addition, your target gains no benefit from cover, other than total cover, and you suffer no disadvantage due to long range. If the Attack hits, your Sworn Enemy takes an extra 3d6 piercing damage.
MThurston
2019-04-17, 08:28 AM
This may be the generation of everyone gets a trophy.
It's about being fair. And if it isn't a big deal then why not let it go. I mean a +1 real weapon is equal to my IPW that I can make anything out of. So why not the real magic weapon?
It's only fair, right?!
Crgaston
2019-04-17, 09:05 AM
This may be the generation of everyone gets a trophy.
It's about being fair. And if it isn't a big deal then why not let it go. I mean a +1 real weapon is equal to my IPW that I can make anything out of. So why not the real magic weapon?
It's only fair, right?!
The Flame Tongue hand crossbow +1 wants your trophy, your girlfriend's trophy AND your lunch money.
Chronos
2019-04-17, 09:08 AM
OK, sure, it wouldn't be very useful to change an oathbow's form. It'd still have abilities that function when you nock an arrow to it, or whatever, but it's not very effective to nock an arrow to a longsword. But just because an ability isn't very useful in some specific circumstances, doesn't mean that it's not possible.
And why on Earth would you not be able to shunt an intelligent weapon off into your extradimensional weapon-space at all? Does the warlock gain none of the abilities of a pact weapon when they bond with a pre-existing magic weapon? Why would they ever do it, instead of just swinging the weapon like anyone could?
MThurston
2019-04-17, 09:10 AM
OK, sure, it wouldn't be very useful to change an oathbow's form. It'd still have abilities that function when you nock an arrow to it, or whatever, but it's not very effective to nock an arrow to a longsword. But just because an ability isn't very useful in some specific circumstances, doesn't mean that it's not possible.
And why on Earth would you not be able to shunt an intelligent weapon off into your extradimensional weapon-space at all? Does the warlock gain none of the abilities of a pact weapon when they bond with a pre-existing magic weapon? Why would they ever do it, instead of just swinging the weapon like anyone could?
Annnnd here is your trophy!
Aimeryan
2019-04-17, 09:37 AM
As far as I can tell, the only new point made since my last post is MThurston's difficult-to-follow 'summon/conjure'.
There is no mention of summoning or conjuring in the text of the pact, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. The only relevant pieces I can find are:
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand.
and
You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.
The wording used is the same regardless of whether it is a bonded magic weapon or not: 'create'. I'll really don't see any substance to the point MThurston is making.
MThurston
2019-04-17, 10:13 AM
As far as I can tell, the only new point made since my last post is MThurston's difficult-to-follow 'summon/conjure'.
There is no mention of summoning or conjuring in the text of the pact, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. The only relevant pieces I can find are:
and
The wording used is the same regardless of whether it is a bonded magic weapon or not: 'create'. I'll really don't see any substance to the point MThurston is making.
And you get a trophy.
Man, lots of people don't understand rules.
You get a trophy and you get a trophy and you get a trophy!
Everyone gets a trophy!
DracoKnight
2019-04-17, 12:48 PM
And why on Earth would you not be able to shunt an intelligent weapon off into your extradimensional weapon-space at all? Does the warlock gain none of the abilities of a pact weapon when they bond with a pre-existing magic weapon? Why would they ever do it, instead of just swinging the weapon like anyone could?
A warlock cannot bond a sentient weapon as their Pact Weapon. Period. That’s why.
MThurston
2019-04-17, 01:01 PM
A warlock cannot bond a sentient weapon as their Pact Weapon. Period. That’s why.
100% truth.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-17, 01:18 PM
A warlock cannot bond a sentient weapon as their Pact Weapon. Period. That’s why.
I think they're asking why it is that the rule say you can't -- not "what does the rule say?"
Aimeryan
2019-04-17, 02:13 PM
I think they're asking why it is that the rule say you can't -- not "what does the rule say?"
Indeed. Also, he is using it as an example of identity and how it can transcend form.
As for the actual why in that question, my gut says it is because it would far too easy a way to remove (or at least isolate) sentient weapons (and artifacts) from existence. That said, I could see that being a plot point - 'kill the warlock holding XYZ weapon hostage'.
Chronos
2019-04-17, 05:27 PM
Ah, OK, I didn't realize that the ability says that you can't bond to a sentient weapon. It would have been a lot clearer if MThurston had said that, instead of saying that you can't send it to your extradimensional space (which makes it sound like you can bond to it, but don't gain the primary benefit of the bond).
JackPhoenix
2019-04-17, 05:32 PM
You get a trophy and you get a trophy and you get a trophy!
Everyone gets a trophy!
Except me. I've got a headache.
patchyman
2019-04-17, 05:35 PM
(1)I believe the underlying basis for his interpretation is (at least my interpretation is):
the magic weapon becomes your only pact weapon, and cannot change to a different weapon.
Thus by bonding with a moon-touched pike, you are proficient in it, but your pact weapon will only ever be in the form of a pike.
(4)for your last point, consider flipping it around...
maybe the intention is for warlocks to be proficient with their pact weapon, so you need to bond with your magic weapon for it to become your pactweapon so that you are proficient with it...
(1) Given that extremely few enemies have resistences or vilnerabilities to piercing, bludgeoning or slashing and that PCs are notorious for only changing weapons when something better comes along, this seems like a boost with no downside.
(4) There are two reasons why I don’t think you can flip it around. First, if the intention was for warlocks to be proficient with their pact weapon regardless of type, why start off by saying they cannot create ranged or heavy weapons? Second, if the intention is for warlocks to be proficient with their pact weapon, why restrict the bonding to magic weapons? Especially since Eldritch knights can bond with non magical weapons?
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-17, 06:57 PM
(1) Given that extremely few enemies have resistences or vilnerabilities to piercing, bludgeoning or slashing and that PCs are notorious for only changing weapons when something better comes along, this seems like a boost with no downside.
(4) There are two reasons why I don’t think you can flip it around. First, if the intention was for warlocks to be proficient with their pact weapon regardless of type, why start off by saying they cannot create ranged or heavy weapons? Second, if the intention is for warlocks to be proficient with their pact weapon, why restrict the bonding to magic weapons? Especially since Eldritch knights can bond with non magical weapons?
1) are you saying that "auto-proficiency with a specific (non-changing) magic weapon (that is your only) pact weapon is a benefit with no downside"?
if not, please clarify your intent.
if yes, it is the core of your archetype. i am okay with the martial-version of the class having soft martial proficiency.
the downside is that you lose versatility (as you point out it is of limited value) for the ability to be proficient with a specific magic weapon.
the downside is that you are proficient in specific weapon A but not specific weapon B.
4 original point) i dismissed this without thinking about it. it is valid reasoning, but it is not enough to sway me personally. i read the text as providing auto-proficiency in the magic weapon-pact weapon.
4a ranged/heavy) perhaps the ability to create/auto-proficient with d12-reach, d10-ranged exceeded wotc's balance point.
4b magic weapons) dang good question. i don't have an answer. if i want to restrict my warlock to a mundane halberd, yeah, let him bond to it... especially since bonding to a specific item makes it explicitly weaker than the EK weapon bond.
MThurston
2019-04-18, 06:11 AM
Let's just do this.
You can conjure what ever the rules say you can.
If you bond with a real weapon then you can not reshape it into anything else.
Fixed. That is the rule and we all should understand it.
Let's just do this.
You can conjure what ever the rules say you can.
If you bond with a real weapon then you can not reshape it into anything else.
Fixed. That is the rule and we all should understand it.
Are you stating that this is the RAW, or your preferred houserule?
MThurston
2019-04-18, 06:47 AM
Are you stating that this is the RAW, or your preferred houserule?
LOL. And you get a trophy.
It's RAW.
LOL. And you get a trophy.
It's RAW.
No it’s not.
Is it your argument that, in the rules that state “You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter,” that “the weapon” and “it” refer to the original magic weapon?
MThurston
2019-04-18, 09:56 AM
No it’s not.
Is it your argument that, in the rules that state “You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter,” that “the weapon” and “it” refer to the original magic weapon?
It is 100% RAW.
You can bond with a magical weapon and make IT go into an extra dimensional space. Then you can summon IT to your hand.
IT is what you are bonded with.
Stop reading rules as wanted.
Yes you can CONJURE any weapon you want. You are not bond to that CONJURED weapon. Yes the CONJURED weapon is a pact weapon. So is IT a pact weapon.
You can conjure a weapon and call for your IT to your hand. Yes two pact weapons.
The conjured weapon can be anything you want. The SUMMONED weapon (IT) can not change form.
Stop adding rules.
Yea I know with IPW you make conjured weapons +1. It still doesn't mean you get to change the form of your +1 mace.
But you can have your +1 mace and a conjured +1 weapon of any kind in your hands at the same time.
Now please stop reading as wanted.
Here is your trophy.
You can bond with a magical weapon and make IT go into an extra dimensional space. Then you can summon IT to your hand.
IT is what you are bonded with.
You seem to be forgetting some of the RAW here. Let’s look at the actual wording:
“You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon...
...You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.”
So in that first cited sentence, it references a magic weapon: let’s refer to this as the Original Magic Weapon. The sentence also clearly states the weapon transforms (for those who don’t know the definition of transform: “make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of“).
So once the bond happens, the Original Magic Weapon ceases to exist as it did, and as it relates to this ability, and there only now exists the Transformed Magic Weapon. There is no proper way to read what follows as “the untransformed Original Magic Weapon is what appears.” The Original Magic Weapon doesn’t exist anymore as it has been transformed. Only the now Transformed Magic Weapon exists.
So the “IT” that the Warlock is bonded to is not the Original Magic Weapon but the Transformed Magic Weapon. Likewise, that second sentence should effectively read:
“You can then dismiss the [Transformed Magic Weapon], shunting it into an extradimensional space, and [the Transformed Magic Weapon] appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.”
Again, to read it with instead the Original Magic Weapon as the referenced weapon, or “IT” as you put it, is just wrong and completely disregards that the Original Magic Weapon has been transformed (that is, you’re disregarding the RAW).
So your view that it’s referencing the Original Magic Weapon is false.
Now, what exactly happens during the transformation? Well the Original Magic Weapon transforms into your pact weapon. I know you find that concept difficult to grasp, so I’ll add some more of the RAW, and logic, to illustrate.
“Pact of the Blade
If your Patron is the Archfey, your weapon might be a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines.”
So here the RAW tells us “pact weapon=a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines” is 100% acceptable. So if this applies to a Warlock (that is, they are an Archfey Pact of the Blade Warlock and indeed has their weapon be a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines), and that Warlock finds an Oathbow (which is, indeed, a magic weapon, and, as such, is acceptable per the RAW on what can be transformed) and does the ritual to make it their pact weapon, that Oathbow would transform into a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines. This is all 100% RAW.
Logically:
Oathbow=magic weapon
Pact weapon=slender blade wrapped in leafy vines
So the RAW line can effectively read:
“You can transform one [Oathbow] into your [slender blade wrapped in leafy vines] by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon.”
Note this also falls in line with the definition of transform: the Oathbow turning into a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines is, in fact, the Oathbow making “a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character.”
Again, this is all RAW.
Also, I’m assuming the trophy you’re handing out will be an Oathbow transformed into a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines. Please make sure that happens. Thanks!
DarknessEternal
2019-04-18, 10:56 AM
LOL. And you get a trophy.
It's RAW.
No one will ever take you seriously if you keep making antagonistic attacks.
MThurston
2019-04-18, 11:19 AM
You seem to be forgetting some of the RAW here. Let’s look at the actual wording:
“You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon...
...You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.”
So in that first cited sentence, it references a magic weapon: let’s refer to this as the Original Magic Weapon. The sentence also clearly states the weapon transforms (for those who don’t know the definition of transform: “make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of“).
So once the bond happens, the Original Magic Weapon ceases to exist as it did, and as it relates to this ability, and there only now exists the Transformed Magic Weapon. There is no proper way to read what follows as “the untransformed Original Magic Weapon is what appears.” The Original Magic Weapon doesn’t exist anymore as it has been transformed. Only the now Transformed Magic Weapon exists.
So the “IT” that the Warlock is bonded to is not the Original Magic Weapon but the Transformed Magic Weapon. Likewise, that second sentence should effectively read:
“You can then dismiss the [Transformed Magic Weapon], shunting it into an extradimensional space, and [the Transformed Magic Weapon] appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.”
Again, to read it with instead the Original Magic Weapon as the referenced weapon, or “IT” as you put it, is just wrong and completely disregards that the Original Magic Weapon has been transformed (that is, you’re disregarding the RAW).
So your view that it’s referencing the Original Magic Weapon is false.
Now, what exactly happens during the transformation? Well the Original Magic Weapon transforms into your pact weapon. I know you find that concept difficult to grasp, so I’ll add some more of the RAW, and logic, to illustrate.
“Pact of the Blade
If your Patron is the Archfey, your weapon might be a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines.”
So here the RAW tells us “pact weapon=a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines” is 100% acceptable. So if this applies to a Warlock (that is, they are an Archfey Pact of the Blade Warlock and indeed has their weapon be a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines), and that Warlock finds an Oathbow (which is, indeed, a magic weapon, and, as such, is acceptable per the RAW on what can be transformed) and does the ritual to make it their pact weapon, that Oathbow would transform into a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines. This is all 100% RAW.
Logically:
Oathbow=magic weapon
Pact weapon=slender blade wrapped in leafy vines
So the RAW line can effectively read:
“You can transform one [Oathbow] into your [slender blade wrapped in leafy vines] by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon.”
Note this also falls in line with the definition of transform: the Oathbow turning into a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines is, in fact, the Oathbow making “a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character.”
Again, this is all RAW.
Also, I’m assuming the trophy you’re handing out will be an Oathbow transformed into a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines. Please make sure that happens. Thanks!
Nope. You are mixing rules as wanted.
This is the rule.
(You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extra-dimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter. You can't affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way. The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1-hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1-hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extra-dimensional space when the bond breaks.)
Not one place in there does it say you can change it's form. And dont bring up any other rule. This is exclusive. Its not inclusive.
Nope. You are mixing rules as wanted.
Not at all. All my RAW comes from the PHB Pact of the Blade. No other rules “mixed” in there.
You should probably come up with a better response than “hey, I don’t want you to use those rules!!!”
Not one place in there does it say you can change it's form. And dont bring up any other rule. This is exclusive. Its not inclusive.
Two places, in fact:
“You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see the Weapons section for weapon options).”
and
“You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon.”
Again, since you apparently missed it the first time: the definition of transform: “make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of“). It’s almost like the meaning of that word includes “change in the form”.
Oh well, guess you’ll have to either deal with the RAW or houserule it. But you should probably come up with a better response then “it’s unfair you’re citing rules!!!”
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-18, 11:38 AM
That can very easily be read as "transform into a pact weapon" in a strict sense, rather than "transform into any weapon you can summon".
It's a vague rule that's open to interpretation... but instead of admitting, that both sides appear entrenched in insisting that the rule clearly means what they want it to mean, and could never be read any other way, and that anyone who says otherwise is a power-gamer, a liar, or can't read.
MThurston
2019-04-18, 11:41 AM
Not at all. All my RAW comes from the PHB Pact of the Blade. No other rules “mixed” in there.
You should probably come up with a better response than “hey, I don’t want you to use those rules!!!”
Two places, in fact:
“You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see the Weapons section for weapon options).”
and
“You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon.”
Again, since you apparently missed it the first time: the definition of transform: “make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of“). It’s almost like the meaning of that word includes “change in the form”.
Oh well, guess you’ll have to either deal with the RAW or houserule it. But you should probably come up with a better response then “it’s unfair you’re citing rules!!!”
You are manipulating rules.
I cut the rules as written.
Go back over what I posted and show me where it says it can be transformed into something else.
(Not making it your pact weapon and then jumping to pact weapons!)
Show me in the rules for real weapons and if they can be transformed.
It is not there.
You are the one making up rules.
MThurston
2019-04-18, 11:44 AM
Well Sir, if she weighs as much as a duck, she is made of wood, and if she is made of wood then she floats, and if she floats, then she is a witch.
Well you can't argue with that!
patchyman
2019-04-18, 11:49 AM
1) are you saying that "auto-proficiency with a specific (non-changing) magic weapon (that is your only) pact weapon is a benefit with no downside"?
if not, please clarify your intent.
if yes, it is the core of your archetype. i am okay with the martial-version of the class having soft martial proficiency.
the downside is that you lose versatility (as you point out it is of limited value) for the ability to be proficient with a specific magic weapon.
the downside is that you are proficient in specific weapon A but not specific weapon B.
This was my interpretation of your argument. I understood that you were saying that a warlock would have auto-proficiency with any magic weapon you bond with, but this is counterbalanced by the fact that you can no longer change the weapon. My response was that this was not much of a balancing factor since characters generally do not switch between weapons anyway.
1)
4 original point) i dismissed this without thinking about it. it is valid reasoning, but it is not enough to sway me personally. i read the text as providing auto-proficiency in the magic weapon-pact weapon.
4a ranged/heavy) perhaps the ability to create/auto-proficient with d12-reach, d10-ranged exceeded wotc's balance point.
4b magic weapons) dang good question. i don't have an answer. if i want to restrict my warlock to a mundane halberd, yeah, let him bond to it... especially since bonding to a specific item makes it explicitly weaker than the EK weapon bond.
Agree to disagree here. My interpretation for point 4b is that it shows that the intention was for the warlock to bond only with a magic weapon he could otherwise create and that is how I would rule it at my table. That being said, if I were to use your interpretation for magic weapons, I would also allow the warlock to bond with mundane weapons for the sake of common sense.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-18, 12:01 PM
1)My response was that this was not much of a balancing factor since characters generally do not switch between weapons anyway.
4b) Agree to disagree here. My interpretation for point 4b is that it shows that the intention was for the warlock to bond only with a magic weapon he could otherwise create and that is how I would rule it at my table. That being said, if I were to use your interpretation for magic weapons, I would also allow the warlock to bond with mundane weapons for the sake of common sense.
1) i totally agree that it isn't much of a balance because i like whips and will always summon a whip.
4b) that was how i initially read it, too. early on, someone presented the bond to bow thing, and now i can't unsee it that way. i do think it is a valid and reasonable interpretation.
(side note, thanks for reminding me that it is possible to have a civil disagreement on this site)
That can very easily be read as "transform into a pact weapon" in a strict sense, rather than "transform into any weapon you can summon".
It's a vague rule that's open to interpretation... but instead of admitting, that both sides appear entrenched in insisting that the rule clearly means what they want it to mean, and could never be read any other way, and that anyone who says otherwise is a power-gamer, a liar, or can't read.
It transforms into the warlock’s pact weapon. “Pact weapon” means something in the game, and it’s a specific meaning that confers certain abilities to the character. There aren’t two different sets of rules conferred upon “Pact Weapon.” It’s one thing in the game.
For instance, the Thirsting Blade Invocation states:
“You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.”
Note it doesn’t differentiate if that pact weapon was created from nothing, or if it was a previously a magical weapon that was bonded. It doesn’t do that because there is no distinction in the rules: there’s just a “pact weapon” and the rules of what that allows.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-18, 12:08 PM
It transforms into the warlock’s pact weapon. “Pact weapon” means something in the game, and it’s a specific meaning that confers certain abilities to the character. There aren’t two different sets of rules conferred upon “Pact Weapon.” It’s one thing in the game.
For instance, the Thirsting Blade Invocation states:
“You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.”
Note it doesn’t differentiate if that pact weapon was created from nothing, or if it was a previously a magical weapon that was bonded. It doesn’t do that because there is no distinction in the rules: there’s just a “pact weapon” and the rules of what that allows.
Yes, it can be read that way.
You are manipulating rules.
I cut the rules as written.
Go back over what I posted and show me where it says it can be transformed into something else.
(Not making it your pact weapon and then jumping to pact weapons!)
Show me in the rules for real weapons and if they can be transformed.
It is not there.
You are the one making up rules.
When it transforms into your pact weapon, that actually means just that: it’s now your pact weapon. It’s been transformed, per the meaning of transform. I don’t know if you don’t understand this, or don’t want to understand it, but it’s what the rules state.
The rules tell us what a pact weapon is, then tell us you can transform a magic weapon into your pact weapon. Pact weapon doesn’t take on two meanings here; the rules would tell us if it did. There is “pact weapon” and the abilities it gives.
I’m not sure what you mean by “I cut the rules as written”, other than the implication that I’ve somehow altered the RAW when citing it.
I haven’t, but if that’s what you’ve brought your argument to, that I’m creating rules and lying about the reference, feel free to go into the PHB and see for yourself. You’ll find it’s a silly accusation to make.
MThurston
2019-04-18, 12:25 PM
It transforms into the warlock’s pact weapon. “Pact weapon” means something in the game, and it’s a specific meaning that confers certain abilities to the character. There aren’t two different sets of rules conferred upon “Pact Weapon.” It’s one thing in the game.
For instance, the Thirsting Blade Invocation states:
“You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.”
Note it doesn’t differentiate if that pact weapon was created from nothing, or if it was a previously a magical weapon that was bonded. It doesn’t do that because there is no distinction in the rules: there’s just a “pact weapon” and the rules of what that allows.
Straw Horse arguement.
1. You can create a pact weapon.
2. You can bond with a real weapon and make it your pact weapon.
3. Statement 1 is inclusive. Statement 2 is exclusive for the real weapon and inclusive becoming a pact weapon.
4. No where does it say real weapons can be reformed. Not one place.
You can not take Statement 2 and make the whole thing inclusive.
MThurston
2019-04-18, 12:35 PM
When it transforms into your pact weapon, that actually means just that: it’s now your pact weapon. It’s been transformed, per the meaning of transform. I don’t know if you don’t understand this, or don’t want to understand it, but it’s what the rules state.
The rules tell us what a pact weapon is, then tell us you can transform a magic weapon into your pact weapon. Pact weapon doesn’t take on two meanings here; the rules would tell us if it did. There is “pact weapon” and the abilities it gives.
I’m not sure what you mean by “I cut the rules as written”, other than the implication that I’ve somehow altered the RAW when citing it.
I haven’t, but if that’s what you’ve brought your argument to, that I’m creating rules and lying about the reference, feel free to go into the PHB and see for yourself. You’ll find it’s a silly accusation to make.
I totally understand it becomes your pact weapon. However it does not mean you merge both rules to YOUR liking.
It is a pact weapon and it is it's original form and can not be changed.
It's wanting to Power Game that is the issue.
No where in the rules does it say the a real weapon can be reformed.
But play your game. I have magic and it can make any weapon I want and it's my magic that is making it. Ok I understand that you can reshape your magic.
Now let's go to real weapons, why would my magic allow a real weapon to reform? Because my own magic can do it? That is a pretty wild assumption.
So now let's go to the extra dimensional space. Do you put your made up weapon in there? Nope, you just call it to your hand.
So what does go into the extra dimensional space? A real weapon. And what come from that area dimensional space when you call It? That real weapon.
So why would you think that the real weapon can change shape? Because I can make any weapon I want!
Can you make any real weapon that way? No, I have to bond to a real weapon and that goes into the extra dimensional space.
But you feel you should be able to change shapes because of your other power?
Yes.
Sorry it doesn't work that way.
At this point we all can say we are house ruling this.
I understand it perfectly. Seems others are not.
I totally understand it becomes your pact weapon.
Based on your responses, I’m not convinced.
It is a pact weapon and it is it's original form and can not be changed.
Again, do you understand what the word “transform” means? Literally, it means to change. Repeatedly stating that nothing says the magic weapon changes is absolutely false.
No where in the rules does it say the a real weapon can be reformed.
Again, try to understand what it means to have something transform.
Now try to understand what a pact weapon is, and what abilities it has.
Per the RAW:
“Pact of the Blade
If your Patron is the Archfey, your weapon might be a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines. If you serve the Fiend, your weapon could be an axe made of black metal and adorned with decorative flames. If your Patron is the Great Old One, your weapon might be an ancient-looking spear, with a gem stone embedded in its head, carved to look like a terrible unblinking eye.”
Notice how nothing indicates whether or not these pact weapons came from transforming magic weapons or not. That’s because, RAW, it doesn’t matter: once transformed, the former weapon is now your pact weapon.
But play your game. I have magic and it can make any weapon I want and it's my magic that is making it. Ok I understand that you can reshape your magic.
Now let's go to real weapons, why would my magic allow a real weapon to reform? Because my own magic can do it? That is a pretty wild assumption.
Not because of anything other than because the rules tell us that former magic weapon transforms into a pact weapon. It is then a full on pact weapon. Like those noted above.
So what does go into the extra dimensional space? A real weapon.
Incorrect: your pact weapon goes into the space.
So why would you think that the real weapon can change shape?
Because of the RAW I’ve already quoted many times that your only defenses against has been that you don’t like me quoting the RAW.
At this point we all can say we are house ruling this.
You certainly can say you are houseruling.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-18, 01:40 PM
To borrow from another forum...
http://cdn-frm-us.wargaming.net/4.5/style_emoticons/wot/Smile_popcorn1.gif
MThurston
2019-04-18, 01:43 PM
Based on your responses, I’m not convinced.
Again, do you understand what the word “transform” means? Literally, it means to change. Repeatedly stating that nothing says the magic weapon changes is absolutely false.
Again, try to understand what it means to have something transform.
Now try to understand what a pact weapon is, and what abilities it has.
Per the RAW:
“Pact of the Blade
If your Patron is the Archfey, your weapon might be a slender blade wrapped in leafy vines. If you serve the Fiend, your weapon could be an axe made of black metal and adorned with decorative flames. If your Patron is the Great Old One, your weapon might be an ancient-looking spear, with a gem stone embedded in its head, carved to look like a terrible unblinking eye.”
Notice how nothing indicates whether or not these pact weapons came from transforming magic weapons or not. That’s because, RAW, it doesn’t matter: once transformed, the former weapon is now your pact weapon.
Not because of anything other than because the rules tell us that former magic weapon transforms into a pact weapon. It is then a full on pact weapon. Like those noted above.
Incorrect: your pact weapon goes into the space.
Because of the RAW I’ve already quoted many times that your only defenses against has been that you don’t like me quoting the RAW.
You certainly can say you are houseruling.
This was all about Power Gaming and not understanding rules.
A Pact Weapon can be one you conjure or one you bond with.
Do you bond with a conjured weapon? No.
So why would you believe that a bond weapon can be reformed.
Because it's a pact weapon.
Yep, circular arguement.
You believe that all pact weapons act one way.
I do not and the rules do not.
Pact Weapon
1. Conjured weapon.
2. Bond Weapon.
That's it. There is nothing else.
Nowhere does it say bond weapons can be reformed.
Conjured pact weapons can be reformed.
Once again reading and believing what you want.
Yes I understand that there is no difference between a real +1 dagger and an IPW +1 dagger.
There is a difference between a +2 real weapon that you want to reshape because IPW only makes +1 weapon.
And that right there is were power gaming comes into play.
Aimeryan
2019-04-18, 02:13 PM
That can very easily be read as "transform into a pact weapon" in a strict sense, rather than "transform into any weapon you can summon".
It's a vague rule that's open to interpretation... but instead of admitting, that both sides appear entrenched in insisting that the rule clearly means what they want it to mean, and could never be read any other way, and that anyone who says otherwise is a power-gamer, a liar, or can't read.
I agree that it can be read in many ways; I posted this as my first post in this thread. Everyone with the exception of one person seems to be accepting that it is entirely possible for both sides to right by RAW. Thread kinda treading water, now.
KyleG
2019-04-18, 02:21 PM
I tried to get it shut down by mods because as the op I am satisfied that rai wouldn't allow the magical weapon (eg oathbow) to change form due to the very nature and text of its own properties (ranged attack). Therefore this thread can be closed to end the caustic discussion that has now taken over.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-18, 02:25 PM
I agree that it can be read in many ways; I posted this as my first post in this thread. Everyone with the exception of one person seems to be accepting that it is entirely possible for both sides to right by RAW. Thread kinda treading water, now.
that's funny, cuz there are at least 3 different interpretations (ie I disagree with Rsp and MThurston). Everyone with the exception of 2 people seem to be accepting that it is entirely possible for multiple interpretations to be right by RAW...
Chronos
2019-04-18, 08:46 PM
MThurston, if you bond with a pre-existing magic weapon, do you think you can make attacks with it? Why? Can you find anything in the rules that you quoted that says it's possible you can use it to attack? Don't just say "it's a weapon", and pull in extra rules for weapons. Use just the rule for bonding with a weapon.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-18, 09:12 PM
Again, since you apparently missed it the first time: the definition of transform: “make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of“). It’s almost like the meaning of that word includes “change in the form”.
I like how you repeatedly ignore the last part: "Character of". Pact of the blade certainly makes "drastic change in the character of" the bonded magic weapon... namely, it can be dismissed into extradimensional space and recalled (it couldn't be before), the warlock can potentially make two attacks instead of one when he takes Attack action (he can't do that with non-PotB magic weapon), it may potentially cause extra damage, it may potentially be used as spellcasting focus and gain bonus to attack and damage rolls, and it can be used to smite things.
It doesn't change appearance, it doesn't turn into different kind of weapon (because it's summoned from extradimensional space, it's not a newly created weapon you can pick the form of) or grant proficiency, though.
Aimeryan
2019-04-19, 04:54 AM
I like how you repeatedly ignore the last part: "Character of". Pact of the blade certainly makes "drastic change in the character of" the bonded magic weapon... namely, it can be dismissed into extradimensional space and recalled (it couldn't be before), the warlock can potentially make two attacks instead of one when he takes Attack action (he can't do that with non-PotB magic weapon), it may potentially cause extra damage, it may potentially be used as spellcasting focus and gain bonus to attack and damage rolls, and it can be used to smite things.
It doesn't change appearance, it doesn't turn into different kind of weapon (because it's summoned from extradimensional space, it's not a newly created weapon you can pick the form of) or grant proficiency, though.
To retread ground already gone over, it is a pact weapon and pact weapons have certain benefits, like proficiency, like choosing form. The argument against this is the wording that the pact weapon whenever you create it is 'it' - where people take 'it' to mean 'it without proficiency and without having its form changed'.
I can see the argument because people on that side of the argument construe that 'it' is not 'it' when the form has changed, however, this is literally a philosophical debate that has raged for two millennium on identity. There are absolutely other sides to that argument and noon of them can claim to be solely correct.
The only problem here is that some people are not open minded enough to see that their view point is not the only view point and that RAW supports more than one view point.
KyleG
2019-04-19, 04:59 AM
Ive been going over the thread and trying to figure out what the proficiency issue is.
So a warlock gets simple weapons, a hexblade (forgot that in my initial post) gets martial weapons. So a non hexblade would only get the proficiency granted on pact weapons.
But Im curious if there is a reason for the redundant text in the Hex Warrior regarding weapons you are proficient with...arent i proficient with ALL weapons at this point? So the below bolded part doesnt seem to fit, unless there is a meaning i am unaware of.
Hex Warrior
At 1st level, you gain proficiency with medium armor, shields, and martial weapons.
Additionally, whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon, you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls. This benefit lasts until you finish a long rest. If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type.
MThurston
2019-04-19, 05:42 AM
I have gone over the rules again to see if I have missed something.
1. Pact of the Blade allows you to create a pact weapon.
2. You are also allowed to make a real weapon a pact weapon.
Now read this rule again please.
It does not say anything about reforming any thing, it says form. Each time you make it, it is a different thing. Not the last one being reformed. It doesn't even say Pact weapons can be reformed.
You can create one or you can bond with one. Not one place does it ever use the words reform.
You can create a pact weapon OR make a real one your pact weapon.
Matter of fact the created one doesn't go into the extra dimensional space. Only the real one.
So your two options are this.
1. Create anything you want.
2. Pull the one from your EDS.
1 and 2 are exclusive and not inclusive as I have said 100 times before.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-19, 06:04 AM
But Im curious if there is a reason for the redundant text in the Hex Warrior regarding weapons you are proficient with...arent i proficient with ALL weapons at this point? So the below bolded part doesnt seem to fit, unless there is a meaning i am unaware of.
No. For example, you can "never be proficient" with the gun from CoS. Improvised weapons aren't simple or martial weapons either, but you can get proficiency with them in different way. Then there are all the things monsters use... ettercap's garrotte, kuo-toa mancatchers, oversized weapns from large creatures....
The later, IMO, is why the developers insist on PotB not granting proficiency with bonded weapon, because some of these stuff really shouldn't get into player hands.
Aimeryan
2019-04-19, 06:24 AM
I have gone over the rules again to see if I have missed something.
1. Pact of the Blade allows you to create a pact weapon.
2. You are also allowed to make a real weapon a pact weapon.
Now read this rule again please.
It does not say anything about reforming any thing, it says form. Each time you make it, it is a different thing. Not the last one being reformed. It doesn't even say Pact weapons can be reformed.
You can create one or you can bond with one. Not one place does it ever use the words reform.
You can create a pact weapon OR make a real one your pact weapon.
Matter of fact the created one doesn't go into the extra dimensional space. Only the real one.
So your two options are this.
1. Create anything you want.
2. Pull the one from your EDS.
1 and 2 are exclusive and not inclusive as I have said 100 times before.
The only thing I can think that you are missing is that the benefits of something created as a Pact Weapon are X, Y, Z. For you, a weapon bonded then created as Pact Weapon does not seem to carry the benefits of a Pact Weapon.
You are not alone in this, however, I think your contention might be different to other people's and I am not sure on where your contention lies. For other people the only part of the text that is causing this contention is here:
You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.
The contention lies in the 'it appears' with some people feeling that in order to remain 'it' then it must not have changed form. For others, identity transcends form and something can change and still remain the 'it'.
Is that the same contention you have?
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-19, 07:56 AM
To retread ground already gone over,
to be fair, the general idea has been covered, but the details have been ignored by one party (and not the one you are thinking of).
But Im curious if there is a reason for the redundant text in the Hex Warrior regarding weapons you are proficient with...arent i proficient with ALL weapons at this point? So the below bolded part doesnt seem to fit, unless there is a meaning i am unaware of.
JackPhoenix gave a good answer, I can also add that not every warlock (even hex warrior) is bladelock. everything Hex Warrior adds to Bladelock it adds to tomelock. Hex Warrior + Tomelock is way scarier in the battle field, cuz pact weapon is a trap.
MThurston
2019-04-19, 08:14 AM
The only thing I can think that you are missing is that the benefits of something created as a Pact Weapon are X, Y, Z. For you, a weapon bonded then created as Pact Weapon does not seem to carry the benefits of a Pact Weapon.
You are not alone in this, however, I think your contention might be different to other people's and I am not sure on where your contention lies. For other people the only part of the text that is causing this contention is here:
The contention lies in the 'it appears' with some people feeling that in order to remain 'it' then it must not have changed form. For others, identity transcends form and something can change and still remain the 'it'.
Is that the same contention you have?
Your straw horse x,y,z does not and never worked.
Each time a Warlock conjures a weapon it is never the same weapon. He makes it each time he does the power.
YOU are assuming that it's the same weapon. He forms his magic to make a weapon. Different weapon each time he does it and he can choose what it looks like. Not reshape it.
Show me where it says reshape? Not one place does it say that.
Your whole arguement is bases on this reshaping that NEVER happens.
The Warlock forms a weapons.
Or the Warlock summons it's real magic weapon from its Extra Dimensional Space. IT is the key word. IT appears when you create the pact weapon.
That's it. No x,y,z. Nothing.
1. Formed Weapon
2. Real Magic Weapon
Those are your choices.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-19, 08:25 AM
snip
MThurston, please read Aimeryan posts again, but without the adversarial stance.
He is not making an argument.
He is trying to summarize the 3 basic interpretations of the rule, and highlight the differences between them.
He stated that he understands the difference between 2 of the 3 (for simplicity, me vs rsp/chronos) and that he was unclear where your stance differed.
He literally asked you to clarify your stance, AND you attacked him.
I like how you repeatedly ignore the last part: "Character of". Pact of the blade certainly makes "drastic change in the character of" the bonded magic weapon... namely, it can be dismissed into extradimensional space and recalled (it couldn't be before), the warlock can potentially make two attacks instead of one when he takes Attack action (he can't do that with non-PotB magic weapon), it may potentially cause extra damage, it may potentially be used as spellcasting focus and gain bonus to attack and damage rolls, and it can be used to smite things.
It doesn't change appearance, it doesn't turn into different kind of weapon (because it's summoned from extradimensional space, it's not a newly created weapon you can pick the form of) or grant proficiency, though.
Not ignoring anything. I’m well aware of what transform means, as I’ve posted it many times. I’m assuming you agree then, the the verbiage of the ability therefore means it’s not referring to the untransformed, original magic weapon?
Now for what is being ignore by many. Focus on the bold:
“You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see the Weapons section for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
Your pact weapon disappears if it is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more. It also disappears if you use this feature again, if you dismiss the weapon (no action required), or if you die.
You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.”
So the same word, “create”, is used whether the weapon is a bonded weapon or not. So RAW, after shunting the weapon into an extradimensional space, you still create it when it returns to your hand.
Since it’s a pact weapon being created, the rules on what you can do when creating a pact weapon kick in, namely:
“You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it.”
They didn’t say “the Warlock can summon the pact weapon,” they said “create.”
This isn’t that complex.
Moreover, the second paragraph states “Your pact weapon disappears if it is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more.”
Note this isn’t the wording ‘shunting it away’, but “disappearing.” So if you have a bonded magical weapon, and it disappears from being more than 5’ from the Warlock, is it gone forever, because it disappeared instead of being shunted?
Or can the Warlock still “create” it? Per the RAW, it’s the latter, because the Warlock is creating their pact weapon whether it’s a bonded weapon or not. And the rules for what happens when you create a pact weapon hold true, whether it’s a bonded weapon or not.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-19, 08:33 AM
Now for what is being ignore by many. Focus on the bold:
You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.
you and i appear to disagree about this part. (and it's parallel with find steed).
that's funny, cuz there are at least 3 different interpretations (ie I disagree with Rsp and MThurston). Everyone with the exception of 2 people seem to be accepting that it is entirely possible for multiple interpretations to be right by RAW...
Just to clarify, Naughty, are you accepting my position as RAW now?
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-19, 08:37 AM
Just to clarify, Naughty, are you accepting my position as RAW now?
I am accepting and always have accepted your position as a valid interpretation of RAW. it is not the only valid interpretation of RAW.
you and MThurston have the distinction of fighting for that honor.
You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.
Correct. The same “create” action is used whether or not the pact weapon is a Transformed Magic Weapon, or not. The same action.
And we already know the rules on what you can do when using that action:
“You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it.
I am accepting and always have accepted your position as a valid interpretation of RAW. it is not the only valid interpretation of RAW.
you and MThurston have the distinction of fighting for that honor.
This goes against your prior arguments against it, which is why I was confused on your intent.
Just curious on why you continue to argue against it if you think it’s valid?
For reference, here was your previous stance:
asked and answered.
transformed from a magic weapon without any pact weapon abilities to a magic weapon with [some] pact weapon abilities.
it doesn't get all of the abilities because the specific rule (this weapon appears when it is created) overrides the general pact weapon abilities.
I’m fine with you conceding the RAW, I’m just curious if you’re stating that while you were posting this, you were trying to say “I agree with your points as being RAW.”
MThurston
2019-04-19, 08:39 AM
MThurston, please read Aimeryan posts again, but without the adversarial stance.
He is not making an argument.
He is trying to summarize the 3 basic interpretations of the rule, and highlight the differences between them.
He stated that he understands the difference between 2 of the 3 (for simplicity, me vs rsp/chronos) and that he was unclear where your stance differed.
He literally asked you to clarify your stance, AND you attacked him.
My stance is this.
IT equals what you bonded with and put into the extra dimensional space.
If it wasn't IT then it would say you just suck in the powers of the magic weapon and can then form those powers to any pact weapon you create.
My stance is this.
IT equals what you bonded with and put into the extra dimensional space.
If it wasn't IT then it would say you just suck in the powers of the magic weapon and can then form those powers to any pact weapon you create.
Or the rules would say the magic weapon transforms into your pact weapon, and then assume you know what the pact weapon can do, as the RAW has already provided that info in the opening paragraph of that section.
MThurston
2019-04-19, 08:45 AM
Taken from another site.
Harlandski
"What the rules don't say is whether the transformed magic weapon holds its form or can also take a form chosen by the Warlock, and I can read the rules-as-written both ways.
The first paragraph refers to an otherwise nonexistent weapon, which can be shaped, whereas the second refers to an existent weapon which should keep its form, hence "it appears", "it" the weapon.
The first paragraph describes what happens to any weapon, nonexistent or existent which the Warlock summons, hence "it appears whenever you create", and "create" assumes "you can choose the form".
I don't think you can apply "specific beats general" here as there is no necessary contradiction between the specific and general rule.
As far as I can see (searching Mike Mearls' Legends and Lore, Jeremy Crawford's Sage Advice and Twitter, and www.sageadvice.eu), there has not been a ruling on this either.
I suppose the main idea of the second part of the rule is to allow you to have magical weapons that do extra cool stuff, and sometimes that might be tied to the specific form (for example, a Trident of Fish Command). But in any case, as is (for some frustratingly, for others liberatingly) frequent in D&D 5e your DM needs to rule this one."
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-19, 08:46 AM
My stance is this.
oh, I know your stance, and I don't care.
You are absolutely rude and offensive in your arguments.
You would not talk this way to your parents and teachers, so you don't need to talk this way to us.
This goes against your prior arguments against it, which is why I was confused on your intent.
Just curious on why you continue to argue against it if you think it’s valid?
I don't argue against your point of view, I argue for mine.
I haven't said your interpretation was wrong.
I haven't said mine was the only one that was right.
I have said mine was right.
I have been consistent that there are different valid interpretations of RAW.
Again you and Thursty argue that only ya'll know the truth.
For reference, here was your previous stance:
I’m fine with you conceding the RAW, I’m just curious if you’re stating that while you were posting this, you were trying to say “I agree with your points as being RAW.”
this is the BS and arrogance that lumps you in with MThursty. You need to win, to be right and everyone else be wrong.
"What the rules don't say is whether the transformed magic weapon holds its form or can also take a form chosen by the Warlock, and I can read the rules-as-written both ways.
The first paragraph refers to an otherwise nonexistent weapon, which can be shaped, whereas the second refers to an existent weapon which should keep its form, hence "it appears", "it" the weapon.
The first paragraph describes what happens to any weapon, nonexistent or existent which the Warlock summons, hence "it appears whenever you create", and "create" assumes "you can choose the form".
I don't think you can apply "specific beats general" here as there is no necessary contradiction between the specific and general rule.
I’m not sure what your point is in posting this.
The first paragraph doesn’t necessarily only refer to a “non-existent weapon”, it refers to a Warlock’s pact weapon (as pointed out in the subsequent paragraph you quoted). Claiming it only refers to non-bonded pact weapons is inaccurate.
The third paragraph you quoted has it correct.
Are you posting this to concede?
I don't argue against your point of view, I argue for mine.
I haven't said your interpretation was wrong.
I haven't said mine was the only one that was right.
I have said mine was right.
I have been consistent that there are different valid interpretations of RAW.
Again you and Thursty argue that only ya'll know the truth.
...
this is the BS and arrogance that lumps you in with MThursty. You need to win, to be right and everyone else be wrong.
You can demonize me all you want, but to say “All along I (Naughty) believed you (RSP) had the RAW correct” sounds rather insincere given statements like these that you posted in direct response to my posts:
[b]I disagree with this interpretation, too. for the same reason.
I read it as, once you have summoned your gift from your deity, that's it. It is what it is.
...
maybe you were sincere and just blind to the question all 4 times.
everyone on the "can't change the form of a magic weapon" side points to the same line. we can see that you and chronos don't acknowledge that line.
Bolded is mine for emphasis.
Again, if you’re now saying “RSP is correct in the RAW”, great; but I’m not sure why you think making disparaging comments about me is better than just saying that, when you clearly were against my position earlier in the thread.
I’m glad you now agree with it now, but to say you never disagreed with it is absolutely false given the above posts.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-19, 10:30 AM
Perhaps note the difference between "your reading of the RAW is A correct reading", vs "your reading of the RAW is THE correct reading".
Some posters in this thread appear to either confuse the two, or reject the first while demanding the second.
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-19, 10:36 AM
blah blah.
whatever lets you sleep at night, mate.
Perhaps note the difference between "your reading of the RAW is A correct reading", vs "your reading of the RAW is THE correct reading".
Some posters in this thread appear to either confuse the two, or reject the first while demanding the second.
Sure, but that’s why I bolded Naughty’s statement where they specifically state they disagree with my points. I’m just trying to understand if they switched their views, or if that wasn’t ever their view (which seems to be their contention now, that despite multiple posts where they state that I’m being purposely deceitful, or “selectively quoting,” etc; and specifically stating that they disagreed with me, that they actually always agreed with me).
whatever lets you sleep at night, mate.
Which has nothing to do with these posts, but your want to deflect has been noted multiple times in this thread.
Though I guess later you’ll just post “I never said that.”
NaughtyTiger
2019-04-19, 10:48 AM
snip
Disagreeing with you is not the same as saying you are wrong. I stated early on, that your interpretation is also valid, but it conflicts with mine about X. Your interpretation wont fly at my table. Add to that, you called me a liar at least twice (i did suggest you use selective quoting to avoid my question, so i need to reflect on that)
I disagree with patchyman, we discussed it,acknowledged it and moved on. His interpretation wont fly at my table.
It is true that you have not addressed the effect of the line or how the ability changes without it.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-19, 10:57 AM
Snip
The weapon clearly still exist, even if it's an extradimensional space, so when "it appears whenever you create your pact weapon", it's the same weapon summoned from the extradimensional space where it was shunted before, you aren't actually creating anything new, as you can't create ("to make something new, or invent something", because you're so fond of dictionary definitions) something that already exist.
You want to create the pact weapon (which you can choose the form of), but because you've performed the ritual that transformed a real magic weapon into your pact weapon, it (the magic weapon) appears instead of a new weapon being created in whatever form you want.
The weapon clearly still exist, even if it's an extradimensional space, so when "it appears whenever you create your pact weapon", it's the same weapon summoned from the extradimensional space where it was shunted before, you aren't actually creating anything new, as you can't create ("to make something new, or invent something", because you're so fond of dictionary definitions) something that already exist.
Not necessarily. You can shunt the bonded weapon into an extradimensional space, but it can also just “disappear,” per the rule on the pact weapon being further than 5’ for a minute. Whether the pact weapon disappearing means it got shunted, isn’t stated.
Also, the rules clearly state “...it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter,” so assuming that “create” must adhere to a dictionary definition rather than a game term, is an inaccurate assumption, if the game uses it in a way that violates its dictionary meaning.
You want to create the pact weapon (which you can choose the form of), but because you've performed the ritual that transformed a real magic weapon into your pact weapon, it (the magic weapon) appears instead of a new weapon being created in whatever form you want.
Again, the original magic weapon no longer exists as such; only the transformed magic weapon exists. When a Warlock uses the action to create their pact weapon, the transformed magic weapon appears, not the original magic weapon.
And your point here ignores the rule “You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it.”
It’s also notable to acknowledge that this line assumes that the pact weapon is a formless melee weapon when not created, which seems to be exactly what a lot of people disagree with, that is, they believe you cannot have a formless weapon, and therefore, the form of the original magic weapon must remain the same regardless of the rules of the pact weapon.
I like how you repeatedly ignore the last part: "Character of". Pact of the blade certainly makes "drastic change in the character of" the bonded magic weapon...
I wanted to revisit this post. The line you’re referring to doesn’t say it makes some drastic changes to a magic weapon, but, rather, says “transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon.” I just wanted to point out that this would mean not “adopts some of the characteristics of pact weapon” (as you try to argue here) but rather “adopts all the characteristics of pact weapon.”
If the magic weapon changes it’s character into the character of the pact weapon, it would, indeed, adopt all the characteristics the pact weapon. That’s what “changing character” would mean here, the characteristics of one thing change into the characteristics of another thing.
JackPhoenix
2019-04-19, 11:40 AM
Also, the rules clearly state “...it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter,” so assuming that “create” must adhere to a dictionary definition rather than a game term, is an inaccurate assumption, if the game uses it in a way that violates its dictionary meaning.
Oh, the irony. So when it counters your argument, it's wrong to use dictionary definition, but when it supports your argument (you were the one who used dictionary to define "transform"), it must be adhered to? "Create" has as much definition in game rules as "transform", i.e. none.
Again, the original magic weapon no longer exists as such; only the transformed magic weapon exists. When a Warlock uses the action to create their pact weapon, the transformed magic weapon appears, not the original magic weapon.
That's irrelevant. Yes, it is the transformed magic weapon, but that's the original magic weapon with the transformation applied on top, it's not a different weapon created out of nothing every time. It's a longsword now, and longsword with the warlock's nametag attached once the ritual was performed. It's not a longsword now and battleaxe 6 seconds later.
And your point here ignores the rule “You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it.”
It does, because the rule is irrelevant in this case. If you have transformed magic weapon, you aren't creating anything, the same weapon appears every time, as noted a bit lower in the ability's description.
It’s also notable to acknowledge that this line assumes that the pact weapon is a formless melee weapon when not created, which seems to be exactly what a lot of people disagree with, that is, they believe you cannot have a formless weapon, and therefore, the form of the original magic weapon must remain the same regardless of the rules of the pact weapon.
Nobody assumes that. There's no "formless melee weapon", there's no weapon at all until you create it. Unless you use transformed magic weapon, in that case, there's a specific weapon existing in extradimensional space.
I wanted to revisit this post. The line you’re referring to doesn’t say it makes some drastic changes to a magic weapon, but, rather, says “transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon.” I just wanted to point out that this would mean not “adopts some of the characteristics of pact weapon” (as you try to argue here) but rather “adopts all the characteristics of pact weapon.”
If the magic weapon changes it’s character into the character of the pact weapon, it would, indeed, adopt all the characteristics the pact weapon. That’s what “changing character” would mean here, the characteristics of one thing change into the characteristics of another thing.
And one of the characteristics of pact weapon (because what being a pact weapon means is defined in the rule as a whole, not in a single paragraph, while ignoring the rest) is that instead of weapon created out of nothing, it could be existing magic weapon with the "pact weapon" tag applied, which appears out of extradimensional space.
Oh, the irony. So when it counters your argument, it's wrong to use dictionary definition, but when it supports your argument (you were the one who used dictionary to define "transform"), it must be adhered to? "Create" has as much definition in game rules as "transform", i.e. none.
You applied a meaning to “create” that doesn’t fit what the rules tell us it means to create, in this instance. It’s not that “it’s wrong to use dictionary definition[s]”, but rather, if the definition you use doesn’t fit what the rules are telling us, the it’s the wrong definition to apply when using that word in the rules.
That's irrelevant. Yes, it is the transformed magic weapon, but that's the original magic weapon with the transformation applied on top, it's not a different weapon created out of nothing every time. It's a longsword now, and longsword with the warlock's nametag attached once the ritual was performed. It's not a longsword now and battleaxe 6 seconds later.
Not irrelevant. You’re claiming “A is still A, even after it has transformed into B,” which isn’t true. It is no longer A, but, is, indeed, now B, per the fact that it was transformed. “A is A after being transformed to B,” disregards the fact that it was transformed.
It does, because the rule is irrelevant in this case. If you have transformed magic weapon, you aren't creating anything, the same weapon appears every time, as noted a bit lower in the ability's description.
The rules disagree with you here, hence why the create action is used for both.
Nobody assumes that. There's no "formless melee weapon", there's no weapon at all until you create it. Unless you use transformed magic weapon, in that case, there's a specific weapon existing in extradimensional space.
The rules disagree with you here. They specifically state “You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it.”
So prior to each time you create it, the melee weapon exists.
And one of the characteristics of pact weapon (because what being a pact weapon means is defined in the rule as a whole, not in a single paragraph, while ignoring the rest) is that instead of weapon created out of nothing, it could be existing magic weapon with the "pact weapon" tag applied, which appears out of extradimensional space.
The accurate way to say this is:
“...it could be existing magic weapon with the "pact weapon" tag applied, which appears out of extradimensional space” when the Warlock creates it.
We know the characteristics of a pact weapon include “You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it” because the rules tell us.
The rules also cite the creating in two different spots:
“You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand.”
and
“...it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.”
Nothing in the second citation here excludes the rule on choosing the form when it’s created.
Constructman
2019-04-19, 12:39 PM
Never-ending RAW arguments like these give me energy to offer up my worship and praises to St. Crawford, patron saint of RAI.
Max_Killjoy
2019-04-19, 12:49 PM
Never-ending RAW arguments like these give me energy to offer up my worship and praises to St. Crawford, patron saint of RAI.
Too many of his posts read like something out of this thread...
Aimeryan
2019-04-19, 05:03 PM
The text says it appears when you create it:
You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.
So, clearly this part of the text is relevant:
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it.
If you do not use that above section, what time-partition is used to 'summon' it? It seems to not be listed. Maybe its a bonus action? Likewise, where does it appear? Where you bonded it? Where you dismissed it? Again, seems not to be listed. Wait, maybe you can never summon it, because you can no longer create a pact weapon! Think I've solved it.
Or perhaps you 'summon' it at the same time you create another pact weapon? So you have one that you create and can choose form, while also having the one you bonded. I could see that argument.
If you do not use that above section, what time-partition is used to 'summon' it? It seems to not be listed. Maybe its a bonus action? Likewise, where does it appear? Where you bonded it? Where you dismissed it? Again, seems not to be listed. Wait, maybe you can never summon it, because you can no longer create a pact weapon! Think I've solved it.
Nice work!
Galithar
2019-04-19, 05:46 PM
The text says it appears when you create it:
So, clearly this part of the text is relevant:
If you do not use that above section, what time-partition is used to 'summon' it? It seems to not be listed. Maybe its a bonus action? Likewise, where does it appear? Where you bonded it? Where you dismissed it? Again, seems not to be listed. Wait, maybe you can never summon it, because you can no longer create a pact weapon! Think I've solved it.
Or perhaps you 'summon' it at the same time you create another pact weapon? So you have one that you create and can choose form, while also having the one you bonded. I could see that argument.
Actually it is covered. It says it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter. That means when you USE AN ACTION to create your pact weapon, the weapon you bonded to shows up because it is more your pact weapon. Now you can try to twist this however you want to say you get to change it's form. At the end of the day that's a ruling made at your table. What is WRITTEN is that IT, the bonded pact weapon, shows up anytime you use an action to create a pact weapon.
EDIT for clarity: I'm saying they get to draw on that portion of the rule in their argument because THAT specific portion is called out in the section discussing bonded weapons.
It's bogus to say that RAW supports that you can modify the bonded weapon because that is said no where. It's appropriate to say that under RAW you can't, because it says specifically that THAT WEAPON appears.
Now note, I'm not saying your manipulation of rules to modify it BREAKS RAW. Just that it's not supported (and they I openly dislike your ruling), while the other interpretation is directly supported, but not proven definitive. Can we please end this pointless back and forth and just rule as appropriate at our tables?
Chronos
2019-04-19, 06:49 PM
How do you call forth the weapon that you bonded? By creating your pact weapon. What happens when you create your pact weapon? You get to choose its form. But don't you get the bonded weapon? Of course. You get that weapon, just with its form changed. It's not like this is the only effect in D&D that changes something's form.
Crgaston
2019-04-19, 08:13 PM
You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it.
That is from the Pact of the Blade feature. So if you bond with an Oathbow, and then if it takes on "all the characteristics" of the Pact weapon, does that mean it can only be a melee weapon from here on out? IPW notwithstanding?
Then we have this, again from Pact of the Blade feature, with regard to bonding an existing magic weapon...
The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1-hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1-hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extra-dimensional space when the bond breaks.
Which directly contradicts what happens with a normal Pact Weapon...
Your pact weapon disappears if it is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more. It also disappears if you use this feature again, if you dismiss the weapon (no action required), or if you die.
So what happens to a preexisting "transformed" magic Pact Weapon when you die? Is it the actual text in the paragraph discussing the rules about preexisting Magic weapons "transformed," or does the "transformed" weapon now follow the rules for any other Pact Weapon?
Are we certain that a transformed weapon adopts all the characteristics of a generic Pact Weapon?
It's bogus to say that RAW supports that you can modify the bonded weapon because that is said no where. It's appropriate to say that under RAW you can't, because it says specifically that THAT WEAPON appears.
Um, unless of course you go by the RAW:
“You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it”
But, yeah, if you ignore the RAW, it’s bogus.
Galithar
2019-04-19, 08:59 PM
Um, unless of course you go by the RAW:
“You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it”
But, yeah, if you ignore the RAW, it’s bogus.
You are again quoting rules for a summoned weapon while discussing a bonded weapon. Yes they are both pact weapons, but as others have pointed out of you want to apply all bonuses of summoned weapons, you must also logically apply all drawbacks. When you do so it immediately breaks the cohesion if the ability. As in "I bind to a +1 hand crossbow, that due to the rules of pact weapons instantly becomes another weapon type, because even with IPW I can't summon a hand crossbow"
It's okay if you can't understand the distinction, but that doesn't make it RAW, it makes it a ruling.
You are trying to pick and choose which aspects to apply, but for you to claim RAW you must say that ALL of them are in effect (meaning all pact weapon rules and drawbacks apply for a bonded weapon) or NONE of them, except those specifically called out are. Otherwise it's a ruling, which again, is FINE. Just don't try to put RAW on your houserule.
You are again quoting rules for a summoned weapon while discussing a bonded weapon.
RAW there aren’t “summoned” weapons vs “bonded” weapons. There are pact weapons, and they aren’t “summoned”, they are created.
As in "I bind to a +1 hand crossbow, that due to the rules of pact weapons instantly becomes another weapon type, because even with IPW I can't summon a hand crossbow"
RAW, you can transform a +1 hand crossbow into your pact weapon. I think, however, you’re confusing transforming a weapon with creating your pact weapon.
Certainly the transformation from a magic weapon to your pact weapon could entail it changing form. However, the only RAW of when a pact weapon has to be a melee weapon is when it’s created.
So if you transform a magic hand crossbow into your pact weapon, it may change form, however if you shunt it away after, then create it, it would need to be a melee weapon.
I mean, it's okay if you can't understand the distinction, transforming vs creating, but it is still what the RAW states.
You are trying to pick and choose which aspects to apply, but for you to claim RAW you must say that ALL of them are in effect (meaning all pact weapon rules and drawbacks apply for a bonded weapon) or NONE of them, except those specifically called out are. Otherwise it's a ruling, which again, is FINE. Just don't try to put RAW on your houserule.
I don’t believe I’m the one picking and choosing.
You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it.
That is from the Pact of the Blade feature. So if you bond with an Oathbow, and then if it takes on "all the characteristics" of the Pact weapon, does that mean it can only be a melee weapon from here on out? IPW notwithstanding?
It could change form during the transformation. But if shunted away and later created, it would be a melee weapon unless the Warlock has IPW. Transforming doesn’t require a melee weapon, the creating does.
Then we have this, again from Pact of the Blade feature, with regard to bonding an existing magic weapon...
The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1-hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1-hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extra-dimensional space when the bond breaks.
Which directly contradicts what happens with a normal Pact Weapon...
Your pact weapon disappears if it is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more. It also disappears if you use this feature again, if you dismiss the weapon (no action required), or if you die.
So what happens to a preexisting "transformed" magic Pact Weapon when you die? Is it the actual text in the paragraph discussing the rules about preexisting Magic weapons "transformed," or does the "transformed" weapon now follow the rules for any other Pact Weapon?
Are we certain that a transformed weapon adopts all the characteristics of a generic Pact Weapon?
There isn’t a “normal” or an “abnormal” pact weapon, at least not per the RAW.
The ending of the bond ends the weapon being a pact weapon. This is a specific rule for the weapon. The RAW is unclear whether the Transformed weapon appears at the Warlock’s feet, or if the original magic weapon appears.
Note, while the transformed magic weapon is a pact weapon, it does have all the properties of a pact weapon (such as vanishing); however, it appears RAW, the magic making a pact weapon ends when the Warlock dies or the bond is broken. It’s not that there’s different types of pact weapon, it’s that the weapon that was bonded is no longer under the effect of the ability.
The pact of the blade ability is an ability of the Warlock, not the weapon.
Per the RAW, you may well have a weapon appear at the Warlock’s feet after the Warlock dies that is in a different form than the one that was when it was bonded. However, the RAW is clear the weapon ceases to be the Warlock’s pact weapon and would, therefore, cease to have the Warlock’s pact weapon abilities.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.