Pact of the Blade

[Pex]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[bid]

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]

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...

[RSP]

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.

[RSP]

"[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]

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".

[RSP]

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.

[RSP]

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]

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.

[bid]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[RSP]

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.

[RSP]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[RSP]

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]

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]

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.

[RSP]

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]

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.)

[RSP]

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.

[RSP]

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.

[RSP]

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]

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!