Pact of the Blade

[RSP]

You can't even read that part of the rule right.

Odd that you’ve changed your stance to agree with mine, yet you accuse me of not reading the rules correctly.

Pact Weapon

You create a weapon and pick it's form. It is your pact weapon.

You can bond with a real weapon and that becomes your pact weapon. You store it in an EDS.

Did you put “Pact Weapon” at the top of this part to make it appear that you were quoting the rules?

So is the EDS for all pact weapons?
No, just the one you bond with.

Okay

So does bonding mean you can't create another Pact weapon?

Here are the relevant sections of the RAW:

“You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand.” That is, use an action to create “a” (singular) pact weapon. This statement means you only get 1 pact weapon when you use the create action.

“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.”

Here we learn you cannot use the create action to create more pact weapons, because whatever you had created prior disappears if the create action is used again.

“You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon.”

Again, the magic weapon transforms into “your pact weapon.” That is, that magic weapon and your pact weapon are now the same thing.

“...it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.” Note no plural on the pact weapon. It’s still singular, and specifies the same “your pact weapon.” One specific item appears when the create action is used: the transformed-into-pact-weapon weapon.

Does not say that in the rules.

See above.

[NaughtyTiger]

Here is an experiment I wish to try:

I like the experiment. However, there are other trigger words, mostly notably "transform" and "it"

It is your Pact Weapon, indeed. Pact weapons have benefits when you create them, like changing form. For the Bonded Pact Weapon to appear you have to create your Pact Weapon. Its pretty black and white, to be honest.

The only way to get around the bonded weapon being created (which I note, does not necessarily mean constructed; it can mean 'to bring about'), is to surmise that you create another pact weapon and then the bonded pact weapon also appears.

It was black and white to me, too... but then I see that other folks have different interpretations from mine...

"You can then dismiss [the weapon], shunting it into an extradimensional space, and [it] appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter"

if this line is removed from the ability, what changes? why is this line here?

If the magic weapon is your pact weapon with all of the pact weapon abilities, then by definition it can be summoned/vaporized.
This line suggests that it is different from a non-magicweapon-pactweapon. I read that difference as "and the Flaming Longsword appears (only as a Flaming longsword) whenever you create pact weapon after the ritual"

if this line is removed from the ability, what changes?
i have asked many times, and haven't gotten an answer.

[Pex]

My belief is this.

You can make your own pact weapon be any form.

You can bond with a weapon, that can not be reformed and that becomes your pact weapon when you call it.

Now what is confusing to what people are saying is RAW is that the bonded weapon can change form and get all it's benefits.

But when you read Pact Weapon it says nothing about magic benefits.

When you look at IPW it says only the bonus to hit and damage is used for real magic weapons.

If we are simply going by RAW the only way to get benefits from a magic weapon is to have IPW. And it still doesn't say that you get anything else but the bonus.

Improved Pact Weapon does apply the bonus to the Blade Pact weapon you create from the ability. The bonus does not apply to magic weapons that already have a +#. Interestingly it does apply for magic weapons that don't have a +#, what the Forum calls +0 weapons.

[JackPhoenix]

Seriously, learn to multiquote, both of you.

[Aimeryan]

It was black and white to me, too... but then I see that other folks have different interpretations from mine...

"You can then dismiss [the weapon], shunting it into an extradimensional space, and [it] appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter"

if this line is removed from the ability, what changes? why is this line here?

If the magic weapon is your pact weapon with all of the pact weapon abilities, then by definition it can be summoned/vaporized.
This line suggests that it is different from a non-magicweapon-pactweapon. I read that difference as "and the Flaming Longsword appears (only as a Flaming longsword) whenever you create pact weapon after the ritual"

if this line is removed from the ability, what changes?
i have asked many times, and haven't gotten an answer.

If the line is removed then you don't, by RAW, dismiss your weapon to an extradimensional space. What happens when you dismiss it would be unspecified and up to the DM. Furthermore, when you next created your Pact Weapon you wouldn't necessarily get [it] - again, being up to the DM.

I think I have changed my mind on this being about identity and join Rsp29a and Chronos in this respect - the magic weapon becomes a Pact Weapon, and a Pact Weapon has certain benefits whenever you create it (again, create here can mean 'bring about', does not need to mean construct). Hence, the [it] is a Pact Weapon - changing forms is part of [it].

[patchyman]

This is still confusing to me.
The magic weapon is explicitly your pact weapon. The ritual transforms it into your Pact Weapon giving you the Pact Weapon properties except as noted by the specific rule.

I read it as you get all the Pact Weapon benefits except: the magic weapon is the only Pact Weapon you can create/summon AND the magic weapon cannot change form.

Weirdly, since NaughtyTiger and I disagreed about whether a warlock could bond with a magic weapon she could not create, this is exactly how I read bonding with a weapon the warlock could create: she can summon only that weapon, but summons that weapon in the form it was bonded and it counts as your Pact Weapon for the purposes of Thirsting Blade or other invocations.

While Pact of the Blade is not super powerful, I disagree that it is a trap option as a have made a couple of cool characters with it that were not substantially less powerful than other players (level 6 oneshot, though).

[MThurston]

The magic weapon still has the properties it had before - you need not restate that it still has those properties for that to be the case. If you Ruled that the weapon did not have the properties it had before, that would be your Ruling - it would not contradict what is written, but it would neither be what is written, so it would not be RAW.

What is written is that you create the pact weapon, whether bonded or not. Which means any benefits that are derived by inheritance from creating the pact weapon are given unto the bonded weapon.

Here is an experiment I wish to try:



What I have done here is replace every instance of 'create' with 'wiliwol'. Now, does that make it easier to see that to make your bonded pact weapon appear you have to wiliwol it, and that wiliwol-ing it gives certain benefits?

To me, it seems that people are getting hung up on the word 'create' when you have something that already exists, even though a valid use of the word is 'to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design'. With using the word 'wiliwol' this conflict ceases to exist, yet what the text says you do and what happens when you do that is still fundamentally the same.

It can only give it the benefits of a pact weapon OR an IPW.

Nothing says it keeps its individual powers.

Says that a real weapon acts like a spell focus. I bond with it. Nothing in the rules says that it can still be used as a focus.

Just that it is now a pact weapon that acts like a magic weapon for the purpose of doing damage.

[MThurston]

This is still confusing to me.
The magic weapon is explicitly your pact weapon. The ritual transforms it into your Pact Weapon giving you the Pact Weapon properties except as noted by the specific rule.

I read it as you get all the Pact Weapon benefits except: the magic weapon is the only Pact Weapon you can create/summon AND the magic weapon cannot change form.





PHB only, before XGE (and Improved Pact Weapon), are you saying that if you bonded with a Flaming longsword, that you could not summon/create the Flaming longsword?

I do not see that as a valid interpretation.

Say I have a +1 sword that foes 1d6 fire damage. Where does it say under pact weapon bonding that the +1 or the 1d6 fire damage are used?

[NaughtyTiger]

While Pact of the Blade is not super powerful, I disagree that it is a trap option as a have made a couple of cool characters with it that were not substantially less powerful than other players (level 6 oneshot, though).

I am biased, I hate warlock's in general. I have never been happy with any of mine...

If the line is removed then you don't, by RAW, dismiss your weapon to an extradimensional space. What happens when you dismiss it would be unspecified and up to the DM. Furthermore, when you next created your Pact Weapon you wouldn't necessarily get [it] - again, being up to the DM.

I understand the Magic Weapon-Pact Weapon can change form argument. It still ain't how I read it.

I disagree with your answer for what happens if the line is removed.

Your bonded magic weapon is your Pact Weapon, so:

• If the line that says "You can then dismiss [the weapon]" doesn't exist, then by RAW you follow the rules for Pact Weapon dismiss.
• If the same line that says "[it] appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter" doesn't exist, then by RAW you follow the rules for creating Pact Weapon.

They added a line that describes that the magic weapon-pact weapon is dismissed differently from the basic pact weapon and is created differently from the basic pact weapon.

[Aimeryan]

I understand the Magic Weapon-Pact Weapon can change form argument. It still ain't how I read it.

I disagree with your answer for what happens if the line is removed.

Your bonded magic weapon is your Pact Weapon, so:

• If the line that says "You can then dismiss [the weapon]" doesn't exist, then by RAW you follow the rules for Pact Weapon dismiss.
• If the same line that says "[it] appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter" doesn't exist, then by RAW you follow the rules for creating Pact Weapon.

They added a line that describes that the magic weapon-pact weapon is dismissed differently from the basic pact weapon and is created differently from the basic pact weapon.

• Which says it goes where? You see the issue?
• You already do follow the rules for creating a Pact Weapon, because it says you do in the very line we are discussing. The difference is the 'create a Pact Weapon' section would not automatically mean 'create the bonded Pact Weapon' without the line we are discussing.

[Tanarii]

I read it as you get all the Pact Weapon benefits except: the magic weapon is the only Pact Weapon you can create/summon AND the magic weapon cannot change form.

Agreed. Thats exactly how I read Pact of the Blade Boon. Due to the sentence on bonding a magic weapon, it modifies the pact weapon rules to require you to specifically summon that weapon each time you summon your pact weapon. That means you can't form a generic weapon, and the magic item weapon you summon is the same weapon form it started as.

[MThurston]

Pact Weapon
Can damage creatures that require magic weapons.

Hexblades can use Cha mode to hit and damage with them.

Bonding doesn't change the above. I'm saying this because people want to argue RAW.

So if you have a +5 sword that does 1d6 fire damage when you bond with it and make it a pact weapon, none of those abilities stay.

It becomes a pact weapon and act like a pact weapon. You can pick it's form.

If you have IPW then only the bonus to hit and damage stay. It doesn't say anything about any other abilities.

[NaughtyTiger]

• Which says it goes where? You see the issue?
• You already do follow the rules for creating a Pact Weapon, because it says you do in the very line we are discussing. The difference is the 'create a Pact Weapon' section would not automatically mean 'create the bonded Pact Weapon' without the line we are discussing.

Honestly, I don't see the issue. Where does the basic Pact Weapon go when you dismiss it? It isn't specified by RAW (we have our ideas, but that is just fluff).

Your second point...
yeah, this is where we disagree. okay.

[RSP]

"You can then dismiss [the weapon], shunting it into an extradimensional space, and [it] appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter"

if this line is removed from the ability, what changes? why is this line here?

This line means the magic weapon-transformed-into-pact weapon can be dismissed into an extradimensional space, for one thing. This line also allows for the transformed-into-pact-weapon to later then come out of that space when the create action is used.

So pulling it out of the extradimensional space requires the create action (and has the same rules).

Further, it means if you bond a Flametongue, the transformed Flametongue is what latter appears if/when the create action is used.

My believe is that the line would allow a longsword flametongue to be turned into a rapier flametongue (or whatever other form), though, as stated, a DM could rule against the view that the now pact weapon retains its prior magical properties and still be within the RAW.

Eliminating that line would mean the Warlock couldn’t send the weapon to an extradimensional space, and that the Warlock could choose between summoning the transformed pact weapon or not.

For example, let’s say the Warlock bonded a weapon that was cursed, without that line, the Warlock could chose to not summon the cursed weapon they had bonded.

[Max_Killjoy]

Honestly, I don't see the issue. Where does the basic Pact Weapon go when you dismiss it? It isn't specified by RAW (we have our ideas, but that is just fluff).

As far as I can tell, a normal pact weapon (as opposed to the bound weapon) doesn't come from anywhere, and it doesn't go anywhere. It is created out of nothing, and just ceases to exist when "uncreated".

The bound weapon, on the other hand, is specifically tucked away in an extradimensional space, gets sent there when it's dismissed, and is pulled from there when summoned forth.

This is why IMO it should be possible to leave the bound weapon in that space, and create a normal, non-bonus, non-transformed, normal pact weapon instead -- regardless of interpreted RAW or asserted RAI.

[Chronos]

Wait, MThurston, are you now arguing that not only does the weapon you bond to not gain the pact weapon benefits, but that it also loses all of the magical properties it ever had? Why would any warlock ever bond to a magic weapon, then, instead of just picking it up and swinging it around like any ordinary schmo can?

[KyleG]

As far as I can tell, a normal pact weapon (as opposed to the bound weapon) doesn't come from anywhere, and it doesn't go anywhere. It is created out of nothing, and just ceases to exist when "uncreated".

The bound weapon, on the other hand, is specifically tucked away in an extradimensional space, gets sent there when it's dismissed, and is pulled from there when summoned forth.

This is why IMO it should be possible to leave the bound weapon in that space, and create a normal, non-bonus, non-transformed, normal pact weapon instead -- regardless of interpreted RAW or asserted RAI.

Although this would work for me, there is that line about, whenever you call your pact weapon the bound weapon is called.
Plus does that mean you could both create your original pact weapon and also summon your magical pact weapon?

[Max_Killjoy]

Although this would work for me, there is that line about, whenever you call your pact weapon the bound weapon is called.
Plus does that mean you could both create your original pact weapon and also summon your magical pact weapon?

I'd think one or the other, not both at the same time.

But that's just me looking for a fair and reasonable and enjoyable decision that makes the game better for everyone at the table and moves on... rather than trying to engage in inane tormented parsing of a vaguely-written rule in a vaguely-written system to "prove" that I'm right.

(Not directed at you, KyleG.)

[KyleG]

I'd think one or the other, not both at the same time.

But that's just me looking for a fair and reasonable and enjoyable decision that makes the game better for everyone at the table and moves on... rather than trying to engage in inane tormented parsing of a vaguely-written rule in a vaguely-written system to "prove" that I'm right.

(Not directed at you, KyleG.)

Nah mate im not worried just also making sure I can present a fair and reasonable approach for the dm but hopefully with the flavor I want

[MThurston]

The magic weapon still has the properties it had before - you need not restate that it still has those properties for that to be the case. If you Ruled that the weapon did not have the properties it had before, that would be your Ruling - it would not contradict what is written, but it would neither be what is written, so it would not be RAW.

What is written is that you create the pact weapon, whether bonded or not. Which means any benefits that are derived by inheritance from creating the pact weapon are given unto the bonded weapon.

Here is an experiment I wish to try:



What I have done here is replace every instance of 'create' with 'wiliwol'. Now, does that make it easier to see that to make your bonded pact weapon appear you have to wiliwol it, and that wiliwol-ing it gives certain benefits?

To me, it seems that people are getting hung up on the word 'create' when you have something that already exists, even though a valid use of the word is 'to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design'. With using the word 'wiliwol' this conflict ceases to exist, yet what the text says you do and what happens when you do that is still fundamentally the same.

You can't make this argument at all because the weapon turns into a Pact Weapon and Pact Weapons do not have properties that are not stated for Pact Weapons. If they did the power would read that a bond weapon keeps it's powers.

[MThurston]

Wait, MThurston, are you now arguing that not only does the weapon you bond to not gain the pact weapon benefits, but that it also loses all of the magical properties it ever had? Why would any warlock ever bond to a magic weapon, then, instead of just picking it up and swinging it around like any ordinary schmo can?

I'm just following the RAW at this point. People want all of it and that just isn't the case. Either it's the magic weapon you bonded with or it's a Pact Weapon. Pact Weapons don't have any extra abilities unless you have IPW and then it only gets the bonus to hit and damage. That's it by RAW.

[Galithar]

I'm just following the RAW at this point. People want all of it and that just isn't the case. Either it's the magic weapon you bonded with or it's a Pact Weapon. Pact Weapons don't have any extra abilities unless you have IPW and then it only gets the bonus to hit and damage. That's it by RAW.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately dense/trolling or actually believe this. Making a magic weapon a pact weapon does not make it cease being a magic weapon. It stays a magic weapon, with all that entails. The ONLY change is that a weapon without a +1 (or more) hit/damage bonus gets a +1 bonus with IPW. A weapon that already has a + to hit/damage DOESN'T get this +1 bonus... It already has one.

No where does it say your flametongue longsword becomes a normal longsword. Any attempt to say that is, in my eyes, a deliberate attempt to manipulate rules into creating a useless ability. Why would you ever bond with a magic weapon if doing so made it no longer magical?? You wouldn't. So whatever you're reading that makes you think that is wrong, or you're misinterpreting it.

[Tanarii]

Honestly, I don't see the issue. Where does the basic Pact Weapon go when you dismiss it? It isn't specified by RAW (we have our ideas, but that is just fluff).

I doesn't "go" anywhere. The default Pact weapon doesn't exist until you summon it.

[NaughtyTiger]

I doesn't "go" anywhere. The default Pact weapon doesn't exist until you summon it.

That is the fluff that I use with too.

[Tanarii]

That is the fluff that I use with too.

I guess I should have clearly labeled it as "IMO" haha

[NaughtyTiger]

I guess I should have clearly labeled it as "IMO" haha

i assumed that already.

one DM made it kinda like wolverine, the weapon sprouted from his arm... very painful and all. we liked that one.

[MThurston]

I can't tell if you're being deliberately dense/trolling or actually believe this. Making a magic weapon a pact weapon does not make it cease being a magic weapon. It stays a magic weapon, with all that entails. The ONLY change is that a weapon without a +1 (or more) hit/damage bonus gets a +1 bonus with IPW. A weapon that already has a + to hit/damage DOESN'T get this +1 bonus... It already has one.

No where does it say your flametongue longsword becomes a normal longsword. Any attempt to say that is, in my eyes, a deliberate attempt to manipulate rules into creating a useless ability. Why would you ever bond with a magic weapon if doing so made it no longer magical?? You wouldn't. So whatever you're reading that makes you think that is wrong, or you're misinterpreting it.

You are right. It becomes a Pact Weapon. It says it in black and white. When you create your real weapon it becomes a Pact Weapon and acts exactly like a Pact Weapon.

It only acts like a pact weapon. The rule doesn't say it retains any abilities unless you have IPW and only the bonus to hit and damage. Nothing else in the rules says it keeps its form or retains any ability outside the bonus.

[Galithar]

You are right. It becomes a Pact Weapon. It says it in black and white. When you create your real weapon it becomes a Pact Weapon and acts exactly like a Pact Weapon.

It only acts like a pact weapon. The rule doesn't say it retains any abilities unless you have IPW and only the bonus to hit and damage. Nothing else in the rules says it keeps its form or retains any ability outside the bonus.

Deliberately dense it is. Where does it say it loses abilities? No where.

[MThurston]

Deliberately dense it is. Where does it say it loses abilities? No where.

LOL. Under Pact Weapon.

IPW allows a bonus to attack and damage.

This mean that if you do not have IPW your bonded weapon can not give you a bonus to hit or damage.

You have to have IPW. And when you read IPW it says you only get the bonus to hit and damage. It does not say that real weapons keep any ability.

I'm just going by RAW.

[MThurston]

Pact Weapon
Can take the form you choose each time you create it.
Can damage creatures that require a magic weapon to damage it.

Real Weapon becomes a Pact Weapon.

So the Real Weapon can damage creatures that require a magic weapon to damage it and can change form.

That it. No mention of abilities or bonuses in these rules.

Improved Pact Weapon
Your Pact Weapon is now a focus and gets +1 to attack and damage.

If it already as a bonus then it keeps that bonus.

That's it. No mention of any abilities kept.

Nothing in Pact Weapon says you get to keep abilities that the real weapon had. And to make it suck even more, you have to take IPW to get a +1 or higher bonus.

So you got a +2 Longsword and don't have IPW. This means that if you bond with it, it's just a Pact weapon that can damage creatures that require a magic weapon to wound it.

I am only using the logic that started this mess and sticking to RAW.