I think the weapon of your choice line is clearly supposed to mean I choose a long sword, now a dagger, not that specific dagger over there.
Yes, this is pretty obviously the intent.
Oh, I agree that that is probably RAI, but it isn't RAW.
Disagree that it is the RAW. RAW does not mean every possible meaning of the same sentence is the rule as written. for rules to be interpreted writing requires reading, reading requires a good faith interpretation. In a case where you have two possible meanings of the same sentence and you know what the RAI is, the RAW is the meaning that aligns with the RAI. I think RAW is a pointless discussion otherwise as almost every rule can be read to mean multiple things.
I disagree. RAW means whether something is permitted by a strict reading of the rules. Good faith isn't a factor because people can disagree about what constitutes good faith. Good faith is about RAI. In fact, you could even go so far as to say that, in most cases, good faith is what distinguishes RAI from RAW. But, that's for a different discussion. Further digging into it here would take us far afield from this discussion's topic.
of course, do keep in mind that this stunt doesn't work against a weapon a character is attuned to. So, I'm betting that it only really works at low levels since most characters will end up with a weapon they are attuned to. You are giving up being attuned to a magic weapon to be able to snatch non-magical weapons out of enemies' hands with a bonus action. Unless I'm mistaken, that means that you are giving up being able to apply Charisma bonuses to hit and damage with a magic weapon. That seems like a big opportunity cost.
of course, do keep in mind that this stunt doesn't work against a weapon a character is attuned to. So, I'm betting that it only really works at low levels since most characters will end up with a weapon they are attuned to. You are giving up being attuned to a magic weapon to be able to snatch non-magical weapons out of enemies' hands with a bonus action. Unless I'm mistaken, that means that you are giving up being able to apply Charisma bonuses to hit and damage with a magic weapon. That seems like a big opportunity cost.
With this interpretation it would work for any weapon you can "Conjure" into your hand. If you think that includes magic weapons than someone else being attuned to it is not a factor as that prohibition only applies to the magic weapons you bond to by touch, not weapons that you "conjure into your hand" and in any case plenty of high level enemies have non-magic weapons.
You are not giving up being attuned to a magic weapon yourself at all. Being attuned to one weapon does not prevent you from bonding with or "conjuring" another weapon as a pact weapon and doing so does not break your attunement on the first weapon. Also you can change your pact weapon every single round with a bonus action.
It would not necessarily cause you to give up using Charisma for attack and damage. You can start a fight with your attuned, bonded magic pact weapon, attack with it using your action and Charisma on your first turn, then use your bonus action on your first turn to "Conjure" the enemies weapon into your hand and it becomes your pact weapon. Then next round you use your bonus action first to bond back to your attuned magic weapon so you can attack with it using Charisma.
There is an opportunity cost you are giving up - anything you would otherwise do with your bonus action, but this is a relatively low bar, especially if you are talking about a dip or feat to get this ability.
of course, do keep in mind that this stunt doesn't work against a weapon a character is attuned to. So, I'm betting that it only really works at low levels since most characters will end up with a weapon they are attuned to. You are giving up being attuned to a magic weapon to be able to snatch non-magical weapons out of enemies' hands with a bonus action. Unless I'm mistaken, that means that you are giving up being able to apply Charisma bonuses to hit and damage with a magic weapon. That seems like a big opportunity cost.
With this interpretation it would work for any weapon you can "Conjure" into your hand. If you think that includes magic weapons than someone else being attuned to it is not a factor as that prohibition only applies to the magic weapons you bond to by touch, not weapons that you "conjure into your hand" and in any case plenty of high level enemies have non-magic weapons.
You are not giving up being attuned to a magic weapon yourself at all. Being attuned to one weapon does not prevent you from bonding with or "conjuring" another weapon as a pact weapon and doing so does not break your attunement on the first weapon. Also you can change your pact weapon every single round with a bonus action.
It would not necessarily cause you to give up using Charisma for attack and damage. You can start a fight with your attuned, bonded magic pact weapon, attack with it using your action and Charisma on your first turn, then use your bonus action on your first turn to "Conjure" the enemies weapon into your hand and it becomes your pact weapon. Then next round you use your bonus action first to bond back to your attuned magic weapon so you can attack with it using Charisma.
There is an opportunity cost you are giving up - anything you would otherwise do with your bonus action, but this is a relatively low bar, especially if you are talking about a dip or feat to get this ability.
"As a Bonus Action, you can conjure a pact weapon in your hand—a Simple or Martial Melee weapon of your choice with which you bond—or create a bond with a magic weapon you touch; you can’t bond with a magic weapon if someone else is attuned to it or another Warlock is bonded with it. Until the bond ends, you have proficiency with the weapon, and you can use it as a Spellcasting Focus."
A weapon you're not bonded with can't be a pact weapon. You can't bond with a weapon someone else is attuned to.
While I firmly am in the you don't conjure existing weapons camp, disappear does not tell you where it disappeared to. It could just go back to where it came from. Personally I think it is a bit of a slippery slope if you can conjure specific weapons. What is stopping you from conjuring the weapon your enemy is about to draw for example.
Greetings!
When I use my Bonus Action to Conjure a Martial Melee weapon that deals Radiant, Necrotic, Psychic OR normal non-magical damage, I grab unformed Chaos and I mold it into a specific Martial Melee weapon for the current combat encounter. When the current combat encounter is concluded, I then release/drop/unbind the weapon and the weapon becomes unformed Chaos again. This interpretation is what my DM prefers because he prefers to track every weapon used by the party members. (One of the PCs suffers from Parkinson's and is somewhat imprecise with regards to his attacks and such.)
One of the reasons why I have the Pact of the Blade Eldritch Invocation is so that my Level 13 Archfey Warlock character can function as a Fighter type when the party needs an extra sword wielder, occasionally as a Rogue type (thanks to my Wayfarer background) and occasionally as a Healer (thanks to my Origin Feat of Magic Initiate-Cleric). As I have stated above, I Conjure a Martial Melee weapon out of the raw, unformed entropy of Elemental Chaos and when I do NOT need the weapon anymore, I release it and it rejoins the raw, unformed entropy of the Elemental Chaos. This is how I play the Pact of the Blade Eldritch Invocation.
This is also how I create software--by forcing the raw, unformed entropy of the Elemental Chaos to conform to MY WILL.
While I firmly am in the you don't conjure existing weapons camp, disappear does not tell you where it disappeared to. It could just go back to where it came from. Personally I think it is a bit of a slippery slope if you can conjure specific weapons. What is stopping you from conjuring the weapon your enemy is about to draw for example.
Greetings!
When I use my Bonus Action to Conjure a Martial Melee weapon that deals Radiant, Necrotic, Psychic OR normal non-magical damage, I grab unformed Chaos and I mold it into a specific Martial Melee weapon for the current combat encounter. When the current combat encounter is concluded, I then release/drop/unbind the weapon and the weapon becomes unformed Chaos again. This interpretation is what my DM prefers because he prefers to track every weapon used by the party members. (One of the PCs suffers from Parkinson's and is somewhat imprecise with regards to his attacks and such.)
One of the reasons why I have the Pact of the Blade Eldritch Invocation is so that my Level 13 Archfey Warlock character can function as a Fighter type when the party needs an extra sword wielder, occasionally as a Rogue type (thanks to my Wayfarer background) and occasionally as a Healer (thanks to my Origin Feat of Magic Initiate-Cleric). As I have stated above, I Conjure a Martial Melee weapon out of the raw, unformed entropy of Elemental Chaos and when I do NOT need the weapon anymore, I release it and it rejoins the raw, unformed entropy of the Elemental Chaos. This is how I play the Pact of the Blade Eldritch Invocation.
This is also how I create software--by forcing the raw, unformed entropy of the Elemental Chaos to conform to MY WILL.
That is my preferred idea for how it works as well. Elemental chaos might be just pure arcane energy, force constructs, occult energy from the shadow realm but conceptually effectively conjuring the weapon out of some energy, not summoning actual weapons from somewhere.
In creating warlocks from 2024 rules, I have come to a conclusion, that either you use a lot of eldritch invocations to build a hex blade, or you use those same eldritch invocations to build a mage. If you try to do both, you fail.
If you want to build a hexblade, you might as well dip into a level of fighter to get the armor & weapon masteries to actually step into a 5' combat space. If you dip into fighter, then many of this argument just fades away.
In creating warlocks from 2024 rules, I have come to a conclusion, that either you use a lot of eldritch invocations to build a hex blade, or you use those same eldritch invocations to build a mage. If you try to do both, you fail.
If you want to build a hexblade, you might as well dip into a level of fighter to get the armor & weapon masteries to actually step into a 5' combat space. If you dip into fighter, then many of this argument just fades away.
However, I am NOT attempting to use the subclass of Warlock that is called a "Hexblade". I am trying to conform to the 2024 PHB, in which the Hexblade subclass does NOT (yet) exist. (Maybe the forthcoming Heroes of Faerun book will reintroduce that subclass; if it does, then I will rethink things.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I disagree. RAW means whether something is permitted by a strict reading of the rules. Good faith isn't a factor because people can disagree about what constitutes good faith. Good faith is about RAI. In fact, you could even go so far as to say that, in most cases, good faith is what distinguishes RAI from RAW. But, that's for a different discussion. Further digging into it here would take us far afield from this discussion's topic.
of course, do keep in mind that this stunt doesn't work against a weapon a character is attuned to. So, I'm betting that it only really works at low levels since most characters will end up with a weapon they are attuned to. You are giving up being attuned to a magic weapon to be able to snatch non-magical weapons out of enemies' hands with a bonus action. Unless I'm mistaken, that means that you are giving up being able to apply Charisma bonuses to hit and damage with a magic weapon. That seems like a big opportunity cost.
With this interpretation it would work for any weapon you can "Conjure" into your hand. If you think that includes magic weapons than someone else being attuned to it is not a factor as that prohibition only applies to the magic weapons you bond to by touch, not weapons that you "conjure into your hand" and in any case plenty of high level enemies have non-magic weapons.
You are not giving up being attuned to a magic weapon yourself at all. Being attuned to one weapon does not prevent you from bonding with or "conjuring" another weapon as a pact weapon and doing so does not break your attunement on the first weapon. Also you can change your pact weapon every single round with a bonus action.
It would not necessarily cause you to give up using Charisma for attack and damage. You can start a fight with your attuned, bonded magic pact weapon, attack with it using your action and Charisma on your first turn, then use your bonus action on your first turn to "Conjure" the enemies weapon into your hand and it becomes your pact weapon. Then next round you use your bonus action first to bond back to your attuned magic weapon so you can attack with it using Charisma.
There is an opportunity cost you are giving up - anything you would otherwise do with your bonus action, but this is a relatively low bar, especially if you are talking about a dip or feat to get this ability.
"As a Bonus Action, you can conjure a pact weapon in your hand—a Simple or Martial Melee weapon of your choice with which you bond—or create a bond with a magic weapon you touch; you can’t bond with a magic weapon if someone else is attuned to it or another Warlock is bonded with it. Until the bond ends, you have proficiency with the weapon, and you can use it as a Spellcasting Focus."
A weapon you're not bonded with can't be a pact weapon. You can't bond with a weapon someone else is attuned to.
One of the reasons why I have the Pact of the Blade Eldritch Invocation is so that my Level 13 Archfey Warlock character can function as a Fighter type when the party needs an extra sword wielder, occasionally as a Rogue type (thanks to my Wayfarer background) and occasionally as a Healer (thanks to my Origin Feat of Magic Initiate-Cleric). As I have stated above, I Conjure a Martial Melee weapon out of the raw, unformed entropy of Elemental Chaos and when I do NOT need the weapon anymore, I release it and it rejoins the raw, unformed entropy of the Elemental Chaos. This is how I play the Pact of the Blade Eldritch Invocation.
This is also how I create software--by forcing the raw, unformed entropy of the Elemental Chaos to conform to MY WILL.
That is my preferred idea for how it works as well. Elemental chaos might be just pure arcane energy, force constructs, occult energy from the shadow realm but conceptually effectively conjuring the weapon out of some energy, not summoning actual weapons from somewhere.
In creating warlocks from 2024 rules, I have come to a conclusion, that either you use a lot of eldritch invocations to build a hex blade, or you use those same eldritch invocations to build a mage. If you try to do both, you fail.
If you want to build a hexblade, you might as well dip into a level of fighter to get the armor & weapon masteries to actually step into a 5' combat space. If you dip into fighter, then many of this argument just fades away.
However, I am NOT attempting to use the subclass of Warlock that is called a "Hexblade". I am trying to conform to the 2024 PHB, in which the Hexblade subclass does NOT (yet) exist. (Maybe the forthcoming Heroes of Faerun book will reintroduce that subclass; if it does, then I will rethink things.)