There are, in fact, requirements for those features, Pact Weapons use the Attack action. Eldritch Blast uses the Cast a Spell action, and as such, is not a weapon, so none of the things you suggested are possible.
There are, in fact, requirements for those features, Pact Weapons use the Attack action. Eldritch Blast uses the Cast a Spell action, and as such, is not a weapon, so none of the things you suggested are possible.
You can use your pact weapon as an arcane focus with Improved Pact Weapon. So you can use your +1 weapon as a somatic/material component
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells. (This is the point you made, you can cast your Warlock spells and the Somatic component will be covered. Also, the Material component will be covered unless the spell has a specifically listed component that is consumed by the spell.
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.
Finally, the weapon you conjure can be a shortbow, longbow, light crossbow, or heavy crossbow.
It has no other effect, and as such, none of the things on your list aside from your Pact Weapon being used as a spell focus, will function.
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells. (This is the point you made, you can cast your Warlock spells and the Somatic component will be covered. Also, the Material component will be covered unless the spell has a specifically listed component that is consumed by the spell.
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.
Finally, the weapon you conjure can be a shortbow, longbow, light crossbow, or heavy crossbow.
It has no other effect, and as such, none of the things on your list aside from your Pact Weapon being used as a spell focus, will function.
It has all the effect necessary.
It is the arcane focus, so it is used in spell attacks, granting a +1 to attack and damage rolls.
Its used in the attacks, so hits made with spell attacks its involved with proc Eldritch Smite and thirsting blade.
If your DM chooses to allow that, good for you. It's not RAW, RAI, or anything close to that. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that. I'd say your original thread title pretty much nailed it.
If your DM chooses to allow that, good for you. It's not RAW, RAI, or anything close to that. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that. I'd say your original thread title pretty much nailed it.
It is RAW. There is nothing in the rules directly opposed to it, its just what the features doing what they say they do as they interact.
If your DM chooses to allow that, good for you. It's not RAW, RAI, or anything close to that. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that. I'd say your original thread title pretty much nailed it.
It is RAW. There is nothing in the rules directly opposed to it, its just what the features doing what they say they do as they interact.
It's not RAW though. Attack rolls and spell attack rolls are not the same thing. Items and effects that modify spell attack and/or spell damage rolls specifically state that they affect the spell attack and/or spell damagerolls.
The absence of rules directly opposing something is not an example of RAW allowing that thing. RAW, there are no rules that say a mundane dagger doesn't let you fly. Does this mean every character that has a mundane dagger can fly?
It's not RAW though. Attack rolls and spell attack rolls are not the same thing. Items and effects that modify spell attack and/or spell damage rolls specifically state that they affect the spell attack and/or spell damagerolls.
Attack rolls are attack rolls, according to the "making an attack" section of the rules.
There is a distinction between types of attacks (weapon attack vs spell attack, ranged vs melee), but they must be directly referenced to apply (i.e. Divine Smite specifically requiring a "Melee Weapon attack" vs Sneak Attack's "Attack with a ranged or finesse weapon).
In this specific occasion, no such distinction between attack types exist for the hex weapon RAW.
The absence of rules directly opposing something is not an example of RAW allowing that thing. RAW, there are no rules that say a mundane dagger doesn't let you fly. Does this mean every character that has a mundane dagger can fly?
If there was a rule saying "You can fly by holding a mundane dagger" and no rule opposing it, yes.
Which is what we have here: the Improved Pact Weapon gives +1 to "It's" attacks and no rule specifies what exactly what "It's" attacks are. And since it is made an arcane focus in the same feature, the attacks it can be used in are expanded beyond that of a traditional weapon.
Technically, since you can sell the pact weapons you summon (they'll just disappear after five minutes), and they have a gold value you can use them to cast green-flame blade and booming blade.
As RAW stand you currently can't use Shadow Blade, because it's purely a magical construct without a gold cost, though that is kind of dumb.
If you create a +1 double-bladed scimitar, and maximize your charisma at level 12, with thirsting blade, life drinker, and eldritch smite, that's two attacks plus one bonus attack at +10 to hit (+5 cha, +1 weapon, +4 proficiency), doing 2D4 + 6 damage x 2, and 1D4 + 6 damage x 1, + 5 necrotic for each attack from lifedrinker, and +6D8 from Eldritch Smite. Assuming you hit with everything (+10 is a fairly good chance) that's an average of (5+11) x 2 for your main attacks, and (2.5+11) x 1 for your bonus attack plus an average of 27 from Eldritch Smite for a average of .72.5 damage, and a potential maximum of 101 damage.
If you start at level 1 with polearm master and take great weapon master at level 4, then max out your charisma and fight with a D10 glaive, if you take the -5 to hit +10 damage.
That's two attacks at +5 to hit, doing D10+21 damage, and one attack at +5 to hit doing D4+21 damage. That averages around 76.5 damage, plus 27 from Eldritch Smite for 103.5. A maximum of 135.
Which is, of course, why the PAM/GWM Hexblade is the most damaging variant of the Hexblade.
My god isn't this like the 3rd thread that Konzypantz has posted in trying to argue this or something similar to this? If nothing else Konzy sure is persistent lol.
So you can use your Improved Pact Weapon as an Arcane Focus.
RAW, this would allow things like:
Doing an Eldritch Smite through an Eldritch Blast
Combining Agonizing Blast and Lifedrinker damage on Eldritch Blasts
+1 to spell attack and damage rolls
None of this is probably RAI, but the lack or a requirement for these features to make a weapon attack opens up the possibility.
Eldritch Smite
Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact of the Blade feature
Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.
Lifedrinker
Prerequisite: 12th level, Pact of the Blade feature
When you hit a creature with your pact weapon, the creature takes extra necrotic damage equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum 1).
You cannot combine Eldritch Blast with either of these invocations.
When you cast any spell, you are not hitting the target of the spell with the spellcasting focus you used to cast said spell.
Eldritch Blast only has Verbal and Somatic Components; therefore, RAW, you cannot use a spellcasting focus to cast it.
Both Eldritch Smite and Lifedrinker require you to hit the target with your pact weapon. This requires you to use the Attack Action. If you do so, you are not casting a spell, so therefore you cannot be hitting the target with Eldritch Blast and your pact weapon at the same time.
So, RAW, the only thing you can do is get a +1 to attack and damage rolls for spells with a non-costly material component.
You wouldn't be able to use the pact weapon as a focus to cast these, since they require a material component with a cost; however, if you use the ritual to turn a real weapon into your pact weapon, you can use that as the material component (since they have a value of at least 1sp).
Both spells require you to make a melee attack with the weapon used, and trigger on a hit; because you are using your bonded pact weapon to hit the target, the invocations trigger.
If you use Booming Blade, and hit, and use both invocations, you'll spend 1 5th level slot, to do 2d8 Thunder (BB) + 6d8 Force (ES) + CHA Necrotic (LD) + 1 Thunder (IPW); if the target willingly moves before your next turn, that's another 3d8 Thunder. Assuming by 12th, you'll have maxed CHA, that's an average of 55 damage, with a max of 94.
The text that allows the invocations to stack is in the language of "hit with" rather than directly echoing the Paladin's "melee weapon attack." One requires a melee weapon attack, the other does not, leaving the door open to using it in spell attacks.
Seriously Kronzypants, this idea has already been dealt with in another thread. If the arcane focus is suppose to grant bonuses to your spell attack rolls then it would say so on the item.
The perfect example of this is the Moon Sickle which reads:
Weapon (sickle), uncommon (+1), rare (+2), very rare (+3) (requires attunement by a druid or ranger)
This silver-bladed sickle glimmers softly with moonlight. While holding this magic weapon, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. In addition, you can use the sickle as a spellcasting focus for your druid and ranger spells.
When you cast a spell that restores hit points, you can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the amount of hit points restored, provided you are holding the sickle.
Notice how the bolded part specifically says AND spell attack rolls. That should be enough to shut down this crazy shenanigans you are trying to argue.
Seriously Kronzypants, this idea has already been dealt with in another thread. If the arcane focus is suppose to grant bonuses to your spell attack rolls then it would say so on the item.
The perfect example of this is the Moon Sickle which reads:
Weapon (sickle), uncommon (+1), rare (+2), very rare (+3) (requires attunement by a druid or ranger)
This silver-bladed sickle glimmers softly with moonlight. While holding this magic weapon, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. In addition, you can use the sickle as a spellcasting focus for your druid and ranger spells.
When you cast a spell that restores hit points, you can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the amount of hit points restored, provided you are holding the sickle.
Notice how the bolded part specifically says AND spell attack rolls. That should be enough to shut down this crazy shenanigans you are trying to argue.
The moon sickle is a new item. I believe that RAI, they are trying to heavily insinuate the point you are making with the new batch of items from Tasha's. Im not disagreeing with you there.
But the RAW says the generic +1 bonus applies to attacks. It isn't specific about the exact sort of attack.
If we just decide it cannot apply to one kind of attack, there is no reason to believe it applies to weapon attacks either, since it isn't specified. But that would just mean throwing out rules we don't like or imposing unwritten standards (which is totally fair for RAI, but my point here is about a silly thing allowed by RAW).
But now its not even that crazy a thing to let the pact weapon apply its bonus to spell attacks. Not when there are now weapons that can just generically do so for most classes post-Tashas. So it isn't even a power imbalance issue unless the DM lets the Warlock multiclass or something to abuse one of these super rare items.
But this whole thing is mostly a fun mental exercise. Im not proposing eating babies, or letting a pact of the blade warlock get +6 bonuses to their eldritch blasts in actual play.
The +1 to attack and damage rolls on Improved Pact of the Blade cannot be much clearer, EVERY magic weapon with a + modifier has exactly the same wording. You are just trying to make an issue out of a non issue by suggesting that because Improved Pact of the Blade also counts as a spell focus the bonus should somehow be transferred to spells as well. You have been proven wrong about it with the example of the Moon Sickle in another thread and the discussion should be continuing there but instead you start a new thread with exactly the same argument.
The +1 to attack and damage rolls on Improved Pact of the Blade cannot be much clearer, EVERY magic weapon with a + modifier has exactly the same wording. You are just trying to make an issue out of a non issue by suggesting that because Improved Pact of the Blade also counts as a spell focus the bonus should somehow be transferred to spells as well. You have been proven wrong about it with the example of the Moon Sickle in another thread and the discussion should be continuing there but instead you start a new thread with exactly the same argument.
This thread is totally unnecessary.
Since its so clear, please point to the part of their text that forbids the bonus applying to spell attacks made with the weapon.
Simple it does not say it does. If it does then it would have wording for it much like the Moon Sickle or the Staff of Power.
This. The rules do only what they say they do. The OP's semantics trying to extrapolate something that isn't there is exactly why rules lawyers have a bad name.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
So you can use your Improved Pact Weapon as an Arcane Focus.
RAW, this would allow things like:
Doing an Eldritch Smite through an Eldritch Blast
Combining Agonizing Blast and Lifedrinker damage on Eldritch Blasts
+1 to spell attack and damage rolls
None of this is probably RAI, but the lack or a requirement for these features to make a weapon attack opens up the possibility.
That is neither RAW, nor RAI. This is now 3 different threads you have started trying to get people to agree with your nonsensical interpretations of the rules. You are wrong.
So you can use your Improved Pact Weapon as an Arcane Focus.
RAW, this would allow things like:
None of this is probably RAI, but the lack or a requirement for these features to make a weapon attack opens up the possibility.
There are, in fact, requirements for those features, Pact Weapons use the Attack action. Eldritch Blast uses the Cast a Spell action, and as such, is not a weapon, so none of the things you suggested are possible.
<Insert clever signature here>
You can use your pact weapon as an arcane focus with Improved Pact Weapon. So you can use your +1 weapon as a somatic/material component
I stand corrected.
Improved Pact Weapon
Prerequisite: Pact of the Blade feature
It has no other effect, and as such, none of the things on your list aside from your Pact Weapon being used as a spell focus, will function.
<Insert clever signature here>
It has all the effect necessary.
It is the arcane focus, so it is used in spell attacks, granting a +1 to attack and damage rolls.
Its used in the attacks, so hits made with spell attacks its involved with proc Eldritch Smite and thirsting blade.
If your DM chooses to allow that, good for you. It's not RAW, RAI, or anything close to that. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that. I'd say your original thread title pretty much nailed it.
It is RAW. There is nothing in the rules directly opposed to it, its just what the features doing what they say they do as they interact.
It's not RAW though. Attack rolls and spell attack rolls are not the same thing. Items and effects that modify spell attack and/or spell damage rolls specifically state that they affect the spell attack and/or spell damagerolls.
The absence of rules directly opposing something is not an example of RAW allowing that thing. RAW, there are no rules that say a mundane dagger doesn't let you fly. Does this mean every character that has a mundane dagger can fly?
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond
Attack rolls are attack rolls, according to the "making an attack" section of the rules.
There is a distinction between types of attacks (weapon attack vs spell attack, ranged vs melee), but they must be directly referenced to apply (i.e. Divine Smite specifically requiring a "Melee Weapon attack" vs Sneak Attack's "Attack with a ranged or finesse weapon).
In this specific occasion, no such distinction between attack types exist for the hex weapon RAW.
If there was a rule saying "You can fly by holding a mundane dagger" and no rule opposing it, yes.
Which is what we have here: the Improved Pact Weapon gives +1 to "It's" attacks and no rule specifies what exactly what "It's" attacks are. And since it is made an arcane focus in the same feature, the attacks it can be used in are expanded beyond that of a traditional weapon.
Ok man. You do you. Have fun with that.
Technically, since you can sell the pact weapons you summon (they'll just disappear after five minutes), and they have a gold value you can use them to cast green-flame blade and booming blade.
As RAW stand you currently can't use Shadow Blade, because it's purely a magical construct without a gold cost, though that is kind of dumb.
If you create a +1 double-bladed scimitar, and maximize your charisma at level 12, with thirsting blade, life drinker, and eldritch smite, that's two attacks plus one bonus attack at +10 to hit (+5 cha, +1 weapon, +4 proficiency), doing 2D4 + 6 damage x 2, and 1D4 + 6 damage x 1, + 5 necrotic for each attack from lifedrinker, and +6D8 from Eldritch Smite. Assuming you hit with everything (+10 is a fairly good chance) that's an average of (5+11) x 2 for your main attacks, and (2.5+11) x 1 for your bonus attack plus an average of 27 from Eldritch Smite for a average of .72.5 damage, and a potential maximum of 101 damage.
If you start at level 1 with polearm master and take great weapon master at level 4, then max out your charisma and fight with a D10 glaive, if you take the -5 to hit +10 damage.
That's two attacks at +5 to hit, doing D10+21 damage, and one attack at +5 to hit doing D4+21 damage. That averages around 76.5 damage, plus 27 from Eldritch Smite for 103.5. A maximum of 135.
Which is, of course, why the PAM/GWM Hexblade is the most damaging variant of the Hexblade.
My god isn't this like the 3rd thread that Konzypantz has posted in trying to argue this or something similar to this? If nothing else Konzy sure is persistent lol.
The text that allows the invocations to stack is in the language of "hit with" rather than directly echoing the Paladin's "melee weapon attack." One requires a melee weapon attack, the other does not, leaving the door open to using it in spell attacks.
Seriously Kronzypants, this idea has already been dealt with in another thread. If the arcane focus is suppose to grant bonuses to your spell attack rolls then it would say so on the item.
The perfect example of this is the Moon Sickle which reads:
Weapon (sickle), uncommon (+1), rare (+2), very rare (+3) (requires attunement by a druid or ranger)
This silver-bladed sickle glimmers softly with moonlight. While holding this magic weapon, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. In addition, you can use the sickle as a spellcasting focus for your druid and ranger spells.
When you cast a spell that restores hit points, you can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the amount of hit points restored, provided you are holding the sickle.
Notice how the bolded part specifically says AND spell attack rolls. That should be enough to shut down this crazy shenanigans you are trying to argue.
The moon sickle is a new item. I believe that RAI, they are trying to heavily insinuate the point you are making with the new batch of items from Tasha's. Im not disagreeing with you there.
But the RAW says the generic +1 bonus applies to attacks. It isn't specific about the exact sort of attack.
If we just decide it cannot apply to one kind of attack, there is no reason to believe it applies to weapon attacks either, since it isn't specified. But that would just mean throwing out rules we don't like or imposing unwritten standards (which is totally fair for RAI, but my point here is about a silly thing allowed by RAW).
But now its not even that crazy a thing to let the pact weapon apply its bonus to spell attacks. Not when there are now weapons that can just generically do so for most classes post-Tashas. So it isn't even a power imbalance issue unless the DM lets the Warlock multiclass or something to abuse one of these super rare items.
But this whole thing is mostly a fun mental exercise. Im not proposing eating babies, or letting a pact of the blade warlock get +6 bonuses to their eldritch blasts in actual play.
The +1 to attack and damage rolls on Improved Pact of the Blade cannot be much clearer, EVERY magic weapon with a + modifier has exactly the same wording. You are just trying to make an issue out of a non issue by suggesting that because Improved Pact of the Blade also counts as a spell focus the bonus should somehow be transferred to spells as well. You have been proven wrong about it with the example of the Moon Sickle in another thread and the discussion should be continuing there but instead you start a new thread with exactly the same argument.
This thread is totally unnecessary.
Since its so clear, please point to the part of their text that forbids the bonus applying to spell attacks made with the weapon.
Simple it does not say it does. If it does then it would have wording for it much like the Moon Sickle or the Staff of Power.
This. The rules do only what they say they do. The OP's semantics trying to extrapolate something that isn't there is exactly why rules lawyers have a bad name.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That is neither RAW, nor RAI. This is now 3 different threads you have started trying to get people to agree with your nonsensical interpretations of the rules. You are wrong.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting