Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
only if you can choose which weapons you can summon as i suggested earlier. A summon weapon my enemy has ability would make it pact of the disarm on top of blade.
The word "disappear" does not mean "ceases to exist," so stop trying to belabor a point you cannot in good faith make.
I ask you not to impugn the character of anyone here.
I ask you not to denigrate anyone. I am not the first person who accused someone of not making a claim in good faith. You are. I am not the one who tried to denigrate someone by saying "you are not the art director ...." again you are the one that wrote that. Let's keep the personal attacks out of it please.
You can play however you want at your table, but the rules are clear and there are different rules for using pact of the blade with magic weapons and non-magic weapons. Nowhere in the rules does it state, suggest or imply in any way, shape or form that you can bond to a specific non-magic weapon. Those are the rules, I am talking about the rules whether you follow them at your table or not. By comparison I don't think there are any rules at all about what a magic missile looks like.
While I can't litigate the rules at your table, I can litigate the meaning of "disappear", which as I noted earlier can actually mean "cease to exist" according to the Oxford English dictionary.
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
Yes. If you can "conjure" a specific non-magic weapon of your choice and cause that weapon to teleport from whereever it is into your hand, then you can take a weapon out of an enemies hand and put it into yours with a bonus action, without a saving throw
Mechanically you don't even have to use the rest of the pact of the blade combat features. You could get the pact from a 1 level warlock dip and then use a bonus action to disarm an enemy. Since this is a 1st level invocation, if you use the 2014 feats any character could take this invocation through a feat without even taking a level in Warlock. Your fighter could take it to disarm an enemy with a bonus action at the start of combat.
The only way it is not unbalancing is if you add homebrew specifying what weapons you can do this with and which you can't or adding conditions that you can't do it with weapons being worn or carried.
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
Yes. If you can "conjure" a specific non-magic weapon of your choice and cause that weapon to teleport from whereever it is into your hand, then you can take a weapon out of an enemies hand and put it into yours with a bonus action, without a saving throw
Mechanically you don't even have to use the rest of the pact of the blade combat features. You could get the pact from a 1 level warlock dip and then use a bonus action to disarm an enemy. Since this is a 1st level invocation, if you use the 2014 feats any character could take this invocation through a feat without even taking a level in Warlock. Your fighter could take it to disarm an enemy with a bonus action at the start of combat.
The only way it is not unbalancing is if you add homebrew specifying what weapons you can do this with and which you can't or adding conditions that you can't do it with weapons being worn or carried.
I guess you could do that if the other person is going to ignore you while you engage in an hour long ritual to bond with his weapon, though you could just as easily do the same with a magical weapon.
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
Yes. If you can "conjure" a specific non-magic weapon of your choice and cause that weapon to teleport from whereever it is into your hand, then you can take a weapon out of an enemies hand and put it into yours with a bonus action, without a saving throw
Mechanically you don't even have to use the rest of the pact of the blade combat features. You could get the pact from a 1 level warlock dip and then use a bonus action to disarm an enemy. Since this is a 1st level invocation, if you use the 2014 feats any character could take this invocation through a feat without even taking a level in Warlock. Your fighter could take it to disarm an enemy with a bonus action at the start of combat.
The only way it is not unbalancing is if you add homebrew specifying what weapons you can do this with and which you can't or adding conditions that you can't do it with weapons being worn or carried.
I guess you could do that if the other person is going to ignore you while you engage in an hour long ritual to bond with his weapon, though you could just as easily do the same with a magical weapon.
Conjuring or bonding with a pact weapon is a bonus action in the 2024 rules.
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
Yes. If you can "conjure" a specific non-magic weapon of your choice and cause that weapon to teleport from whereever it is into your hand, then you can take a weapon out of an enemies hand and put it into yours with a bonus action, without a saving throw
Mechanically you don't even have to use the rest of the pact of the blade combat features. You could get the pact from a 1 level warlock dip and then use a bonus action to disarm an enemy. Since this is a 1st level invocation, if you use the 2014 feats any character could take this invocation through a feat without even taking a level in Warlock. Your fighter could take it to disarm an enemy with a bonus action at the start of combat.
The only way it is not unbalancing is if you add homebrew specifying what weapons you can do this with and which you can't or adding conditions that you can't do it with weapons being worn or carried.
I guess you could do that if the other person is going to ignore you while you engage in an hour long ritual to bond with his weapon, though you could just as easily do the same with a magical weapon.
Conjuring or bonding with a pact weapon is a bonus action in the 2024 rules.
I had to look this up. The rules state, "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."
That' s pretty interesting. I want to say that you are wrong, but I don't see any way that you are. Yes, it does look to me like a Warlock could choose to not bond to a magic weapon and, then, whenever someone attacks him with a mundane weapon, he just decides to claim it as a pact weapon and cause it to magically appear in his hand - instantly and infallibly disarming his opponent.
I doubt this is RAI, but it does appear to me to be RAW.
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
There are zero balancing issues, so that isn't a factor. The feature doesn't say you can disarm an enemy by taking a weapon from them, so that's off the table. Rules are permissive, not exclusionary. You do what you say they do. Mechanically, it does not matter if the warlock...
Creates a nonmagical weapon and destroys it when the pact is ended
Draws a specific weapon from their patron, like the hexblades of fourth edition
Summons a random, unattended weapon of their chosen type to their hand, and it's returned by the magic when the pact is ended
...because none of those violate the text of the Eldritch Invocation. The conjuration school of magic includes creation, summoning, and transportation spells. The word "conjure" explicitly appears in the descriptions of certain spells, like Cloud of Daggers and Conjure Fey. I think it's really weird that people are digging in their heels and saying "conjure" can only mean one thing, because the evidence doesn't support it.
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
There are zero balancing issues, so that isn't a factor. The feature doesn't say you can disarm an enemy by taking a weapon from them, so that's off the table. Rules are permissive, not exclusionary. You do what you say they do. Mechanically, it does not matter if the warlock...
Creates a nonmagical weapon and destroys it when the pact is ended
Draws a specific weapon from their patron, like the hexblades of fourth edition
Summons a random, unattended weapon of their chosen type to their hand, and it's returned by the magic when the pact is ended
...because none of those violate the text of the Eldritch Invocation. The conjuration school of magic includes creation, summoning, and transportation spells. The word "conjure" explicitly appears in the descriptions of certain spells, like Cloud of Daggers and Conjure Fey. I think it's really weird that people are digging in their heels and saying "conjure" can only mean one thing, because the evidence doesn't support it.
Flavor is free.
The weapon is of your choice as per the pact's description. That means that you can choose "that specific weapon over there." There's nothing that prohibits that. Even if that weapon is in somebody else's hand.
The alternative interpretation is that it creates a copy, so you don't get that specific weapon over there, but rather a copy of it. The problem with that is that it opens up abuse in the form of "The party just got uber powerful weapon in treasure, let's say a luck blade. The warlock can now create a copy of it as often as he wishes - infinite wishes."
I will say that might be a fun invocation to add to their pool, pre-req pact of the blade, level 5. Can summon any weapon in sight, range X, if on a person they get a chr save. Maybe limited times per day. If command a level 1 spell can get people to drop weapons, fear can cause everyone in a large cone to a invocation does not seem a stretch.
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
There are zero balancing issues, so that isn't a factor. The feature doesn't say you can disarm an enemy by taking a weapon from them, so that's off the table. Rules are permissive, not exclusionary. You do what you say they do. Mechanically, it does not matter if the warlock...
Creates a nonmagical weapon and destroys it when the pact is ended
Draws a specific weapon from their patron, like the hexblades of fourth edition
Summons a random, unattended weapon of their chosen type to their hand, and it's returned by the magic when the pact is ended
...because none of those violate the text of the Eldritch Invocation. The conjuration school of magic includes creation, summoning, and transportation spells. The word "conjure" explicitly appears in the descriptions of certain spells, like Cloud of Daggers and Conjure Fey. I think it's really weird that people are digging in their heels and saying "conjure" can only mean one thing, because the evidence doesn't support it.
Flavor is free.
The weapon is of your choice as per the pact's description. That means that you can choose "that specific weapon over there." There's nothing that prohibits that. Even if that weapon is in somebody else's hand.
The alternative interpretation is that it creates a copy, so you don't get that specific weapon over there, but rather a copy of it. The problem with that is that it opens up abuse in the form of "The party just got uber powerful weapon in treasure, let's say a luck blade. The warlock can now create a copy of it as often as he wishes - infinite wishes."
If the concern is that the Eldritch Invocation somehow would allow for disarming someone else, then...
What are the general rules for disarming a creature?
How does the Eldritch Invocation carve out an exception to that rule?
Unless both of the above are met, then your fear is rooted in homebrew. As in, you need to invent rules to let the thing you're afraid of happen. And you don't have to do that.
If you're worried about a Battle Master Fighter using Disarming Strike to relieve an enemy of their weapon, and then use Pact of the Blade to take possession of that weapon at range, that is a niche occurrence you can adjudicate if a player under you attempts it.
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.
Yes. If you can "conjure" a specific non-magic weapon of your choice and cause that weapon to teleport from whereever it is into your hand, then you can take a weapon out of an enemies hand and put it into yours with a bonus action, without a saving throw
Mechanically you don't even have to use the rest of the pact of the blade combat features. You could get the pact from a 1 level warlock dip and then use a bonus action to disarm an enemy. Since this is a 1st level invocation, if you use the 2014 feats any character could take this invocation through a feat without even taking a level in Warlock. Your fighter could take it to disarm an enemy with a bonus action at the start of combat.
The only way it is not unbalancing is if you add homebrew specifying what weapons you can do this with and which you can't or adding conditions that you can't do it with weapons being worn or carried.
I guess you could do that if the other person is going to ignore you while you engage in an hour long ritual to bond with his weapon, though you could just as easily do the same with a magical weapon.
It is not an hour long it is a bonus action in the 2024 rules. That is the whole point.
A magic item needs to be touched and it does not automatically go into your hand when you do it. Here is the relevant text.
"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."
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
There are zero balancing issues, so that isn't a factor. The feature doesn't say you can disarm an enemy by taking a weapon from them, so that's off the table. Rules are permissive, not exclusionary. You do what you say they do.
The feature says you "conjure a pact weapon in your hand". If your interpretation of those 5 words is that you choose a specific existing weapon you want to conjure into your hand, and then that weapon teleports from wherever it is into your hand, then it means exactly that you can disarm an opponent. As you said the rules are permissive, so you can absolutely use them to teleport an enemies weapon if you can choose that specific weapon and if conjure means teleport. There is nothing in the rules saying you can't, or excluding that weapon that the enemy is holding.
Mechanically, it does not matter if the warlock...
Creates a nonmagical weapon and destroys it when the pact is ended
Draws a specific weapon from their patron, like the hexblades of fourth edition
Summons a random, unattended weapon of their chosen type to their hand, and it's returned by the magic when the pact is ended
...because none of those violate the text of the Eldritch Invocation.
And if that is your interpretation of "conjure", then choosing the enemies weapon does not violate the text of the Invocation either.
The conjuration school of magic includes creation, summoning, and transportation spells. The word "conjure" explicitly appears in the descriptions of certain spells, like Cloud of Daggers and Conjure Fey. I think it's really weird that people are digging in their heels and saying "conjure" can only mean one thing, because the evidence doesn't support it.
I am not saying Conjure can only mean one thing. I am saying "Conjure" does not mean the same as "teleport" and "teleport" does not mean the same as "disappear". Neither Conjure Fey nor Cloud of Daggers teleports anything.
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
There are zero balancing issues, so that isn't a factor. The feature doesn't say you can disarm an enemy by taking a weapon from them, so that's off the table. Rules are permissive, not exclusionary. You do what you say they do. Mechanically, it does not matter if the warlock...
Creates a nonmagical weapon and destroys it when the pact is ended
Draws a specific weapon from their patron, like the hexblades of fourth edition
Summons a random, unattended weapon of their chosen type to their hand, and it's returned by the magic when the pact is ended
...because none of those violate the text of the Eldritch Invocation. The conjuration school of magic includes creation, summoning, and transportation spells. The word "conjure" explicitly appears in the descriptions of certain spells, like Cloud of Daggers and Conjure Fey. I think it's really weird that people are digging in their heels and saying "conjure" can only mean one thing, because the evidence doesn't support it.
Flavor is free.
The weapon is of your choice as per the pact's description. That means that you can choose "that specific weapon over there." There's nothing that prohibits that. Even if that weapon is in somebody else's hand.
The alternative interpretation is that it creates a copy, so you don't get that specific weapon over there, but rather a copy of it. The problem with that is that it opens up abuse in the form of "The party just got uber powerful weapon in treasure, let's say a luck blade. The warlock can now create a copy of it as often as he wishes - infinite wishes."
If the concern is that the Eldritch Invocation somehow would allow for disarming someone else, then...
What are the general rules for disarming a creature?
How does the Eldritch Invocation carve out an exception to that rule?
The Eldritch Invocation "conjures" a weapon in your hand. If that is a specific weapon and that weapon was somewhere else before it was "conjured" into your hand then there are the answers to both of those questions. The Invocation has the specific verbiage for disarming a creature and the carve out is the mechanic that allows you to "conjure" that weapon from wherever it is into your hand.
"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"
If you're worried about a Battle Master Fighter using Disarming Strike to relieve an enemy of their weapon, and then use Pact of the Blade to take possession of that weapon at range, that is a niche occurrence you can adjudicate if a player under you attempts it.
You would not need the disarming strike first, because nothing in the Invocation says the specific weapon you are "conjuring" can't be one that is held or carried by another creature.
Please forgive me if this quesiton has an obvious answer, but how much does it matter? I mean, are there consequences in game play that I can't right now see that would open the door to unbalancing abuse?
only if you can choose which weapons you can summon as i suggested earlier. A summon weapon my enemy has ability would make it pact of the disarm on top of blade.
I ask you not to denigrate anyone. I am not the first person who accused someone of not making a claim in good faith. You are. I am not the one who tried to denigrate someone by saying "you are not the art director ...." again you are the one that wrote that. Let's keep the personal attacks out of it please.
You can play however you want at your table, but the rules are clear and there are different rules for using pact of the blade with magic weapons and non-magic weapons. Nowhere in the rules does it state, suggest or imply in any way, shape or form that you can bond to a specific non-magic weapon. Those are the rules, I am talking about the rules whether you follow them at your table or not. By comparison I don't think there are any rules at all about what a magic missile looks like.
While I can't litigate the rules at your table, I can litigate the meaning of "disappear", which as I noted earlier can actually mean "cease to exist" according to the Oxford English dictionary.
Yes. If you can "conjure" a specific non-magic weapon of your choice and cause that weapon to teleport from whereever it is into your hand, then you can take a weapon out of an enemies hand and put it into yours with a bonus action, without a saving throw
Mechanically you don't even have to use the rest of the pact of the blade combat features. You could get the pact from a 1 level warlock dip and then use a bonus action to disarm an enemy. Since this is a 1st level invocation, if you use the 2014 feats any character could take this invocation through a feat without even taking a level in Warlock. Your fighter could take it to disarm an enemy with a bonus action at the start of combat.
The only way it is not unbalancing is if you add homebrew specifying what weapons you can do this with and which you can't or adding conditions that you can't do it with weapons being worn or carried.
I guess you could do that if the other person is going to ignore you while you engage in an hour long ritual to bond with his weapon, though you could just as easily do the same with a magical weapon.
Conjuring or bonding with a pact weapon is a bonus action in the 2024 rules.
pronouns: he/she/they
I had to look this up. The rules state, "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."
That' s pretty interesting. I want to say that you are wrong, but I don't see any way that you are. Yes, it does look to me like a Warlock could choose to not bond to a magic weapon and, then, whenever someone attacks him with a mundane weapon, he just decides to claim it as a pact weapon and cause it to magically appear in his hand - instantly and infallibly disarming his opponent.
I doubt this is RAI, but it does appear to me to be RAW.
There are zero balancing issues, so that isn't a factor. The feature doesn't say you can disarm an enemy by taking a weapon from them, so that's off the table. Rules are permissive, not exclusionary. You do what you say they do. Mechanically, it does not matter if the warlock...
...because none of those violate the text of the Eldritch Invocation. The conjuration school of magic includes creation, summoning, and transportation spells. The word "conjure" explicitly appears in the descriptions of certain spells, like Cloud of Daggers and Conjure Fey. I think it's really weird that people are digging in their heels and saying "conjure" can only mean one thing, because the evidence doesn't support it.
Flavor is free.
The weapon is of your choice as per the pact's description. That means that you can choose "that specific weapon over there." There's nothing that prohibits that. Even if that weapon is in somebody else's hand.
The alternative interpretation is that it creates a copy, so you don't get that specific weapon over there, but rather a copy of it. The problem with that is that it opens up abuse in the form of "The party just got uber powerful weapon in treasure, let's say a luck blade. The warlock can now create a copy of it as often as he wishes - infinite wishes."
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.
pronouns: he/she/they
I will say that might be a fun invocation to add to their pool, pre-req pact of the blade, level 5. Can summon any weapon in sight, range X, if on a person they get a chr save. Maybe limited times per day. If command a level 1 spell can get people to drop weapons, fear can cause everyone in a large cone to a invocation does not seem a stretch.
That's a very neat idea, though I feel like a Strength save might be more appropriate.
pronouns: he/she/they
Maybe, I was thinking banishment/forced teleport style features go against chr
Oh, I agree that that is probably RAI, but it isn't RAW.
If the concern is that the Eldritch Invocation somehow would allow for disarming someone else, then...
Unless both of the above are met, then your fear is rooted in homebrew. As in, you need to invent rules to let the thing you're afraid of happen. And you don't have to do that.
If you're worried about a Battle Master Fighter using Disarming Strike to relieve an enemy of their weapon, and then use Pact of the Blade to take possession of that weapon at range, that is a niche occurrence you can adjudicate if a player under you attempts it.
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.
It is not an hour long it is a bonus action in the 2024 rules. That is the whole point.
A magic item needs to be touched and it does not automatically go into your hand when you do it. Here is the relevant text.
"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."
The feature says you "conjure a pact weapon in your hand". If your interpretation of those 5 words is that you choose a specific existing weapon you want to conjure into your hand, and then that weapon teleports from wherever it is into your hand, then it means exactly that you can disarm an opponent. As you said the rules are permissive, so you can absolutely use them to teleport an enemies weapon if you can choose that specific weapon and if conjure means teleport. There is nothing in the rules saying you can't, or excluding that weapon that the enemy is holding.
And if that is your interpretation of "conjure", then choosing the enemies weapon does not violate the text of the Invocation either.
The Eldritch Invocation "conjures" a weapon in your hand. If that is a specific weapon and that weapon was somewhere else before it was "conjured" into your hand then there are the answers to both of those questions. The Invocation has the specific verbiage for disarming a creature and the carve out is the mechanic that allows you to "conjure" that weapon from wherever it is into your hand.
"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"
You would not need the disarming strike first, because nothing in the Invocation says the specific weapon you are "conjuring" can't be one that is held or carried by another creature.