So I am seeing a lot of posts on different D&D forums about players trying to wrap their heads around the Hexblade because they notice it says you can't use a sentient weapon as your pact weapon. Players keep saying well "I have this magic sentient weapon of great power but only the Hex Warrior Channeled weapon works with it but the pact of the blade doesn't which does make since".
Please stop and look again. No where does it say you GET an artifact hexblade as a weapon. The Hexblade is your patron not your tool or your servant. You don't get a Demon to hit people with if you chose the Fiend patron. This is the same thing. I do understand the confusion because you hear you get your power from a magic sword you assume for some reason you get the sword but try to look at it a different way. Patrons create many warlocks not just one. An Arch Fey or Fiend might have 5 or 100 warlocks under its patronage and the Hexblade is no different. It actually makes since that the blade is held by some other than you "knighting warlocks" in the service of a greater entity.
Just for example: Lets consider the Raven Queen for a moment since that is the most common source for HexBlades. She can make Clerics and Paladins directly but she is also trying to grow and army in the Shadow Fel to fight Vecna and his Sentient undead menions. It makes more since that she gave a Hexblade to Paladin and told him to go around recruiting worthy followers to her cause. She gives the this Paladin the mission but she knows he can't be expected to judge who is worth and who is not and at the same time she is delegating this task so she doesn't want to have to personally check and verify each candidate her self. So she imbues a sword with a powerful sentience and her will. When a paladin finds a candidate, the paladin attempts to "knight" the candidate by touching them on the shoulder with the Hexblade. The HexBlade enters their mind, makes and offer, and if they both agree to it the Hexblade grants some of its power (second hand from the Raven Queen) to the candidate and they become a Hexblade Warlock. The paladin then leaves with the Hexblade to recruit more warlocks.
Not just a melee blade: Now that's just an example and if you take pact of the blade you could say your pact weapon is a manifest as a mirror image of your hexblade patron but its not required. You could also, be pact of the chain with a raven familiar (again not required), or even a pack of the tome with an image of Hexblade on the cover with a raven behind it (still not required). The reason I point this out is that the "Hexblade's curse" and all other hexblade abilities (except the Hex Warrior channeled weapon) work equally as well with eldritch blast as it does your pact weapon meaning that their is no requirement that you build a melee based warlock or pact of the blade. In fact "Hex Warrior" provided armor and shield is still good on a ranged caster and only the martial proficiency and channeled Hex Warrior weapon is useful in melee and is pretty much redundant to the pact of the blade pact weapon because you are automatically proficient with your pact weapon. So in the end the only thing useful for a Hexblade Warlock in melee over being a caster is that "Hex Warrior" can use charisma for its melee attack and damage instead of strength or dex. This is actually very useful as a pact of a Tome or Chain warlock because if means you can still use weapon for melee opportunity attacks and make dex and strength dumb stats to focus on Charisma and Constitution (not that recommend that I am just saying its makes it a stronger option). As a melee Pact of the Blade, you still might not want to dumb those stats if you want dex for AC bonus or Strength to knock people prone with your first attack from Thirsty-Blade for example.
You can play how you want, if your GM is willing to give you a Legendary HexBlade so you can go around "Knighting" warlocks, that's fine. But you are likely to use your pact blade for melee combat since the Hexblade can not be your pack weapon and it is actually a very good subclass for caster based warlocks who just use a dagger for an opportunity attack with hex warrior once in a while. If you can make that separation of a Hexblade as a patron and not a weapon you get at level one in your mind, the confusion I see in a lot of people thinking of the subclass as strictly melee and trying to use a weapon you shouldn't have and which might actually weaken you in combat will clear up. I hope this helps the people confused by the perceived contradiction and /or open up this option for people who wrote it off as a "melee subclass". I have seen quite a few posts stuck on both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Actually the hexblade patron is a "mysterious entity from the ShadowFell" that manifests in this plane in sentient weapons, so it is possible that you have been empowered by that entity without ever coming near a sentient weapon, IMO. The same force that creates those weapons may have entered into a pact with a warlock, thereby encouraging Pact of the Tome or Chain rather than Blade.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
Actually the hexblade patron is a "mysterious entity from the ShadowFell" that manifests in this plane in sentient weapons, so it is possible that you have been empowered by that entity without ever coming near a sentient weapon, IMO. The same force that creates those weapons may have entered into a pact with a warlock, thereby encouraging Pact of the Tome or Chain rather than Blade.
I am not disputing that at all. I just used one example based off:
"Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the first of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks , are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends."
But that is only the origin of the subclass, I am sure in battles of escalation in the Shadow Fey their are others who have copied her technic for their own goals. Its just the best example because other examples would be more vague and campaign/GM specific. I in no way intend to exclude other paths to the subclass.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I wasn't very clear, I found your post well thought out and it provides a great example. I was just trying to highlight that there didn't need to be a weapon involved at all in the formation of the pact.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
For mine, I found a shard of an ancient sentient weapon and embedded it into my arm (Accidentally at first. Long story.) and it acted like a conduit through which the sentient weapon channels power and knowledge. After having the shard embedded, the link has already been established and with it's removal doesn't mean I lose my power. But while I have the power, I have the urge to hunt down the owner of the shard (The sentient weapon) and while the shard is embedded, that urge is significantly higher. So far, that's as far into the story I've gotten.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
Players keep saying well "I have this magic sentient weapon of great power but only the Hex Warrior Channeled weapon works with it but the pact of the blade doesn't which does make since".
Actually I was rereading the pact of blade recently and I noticed that the only time it mentions restrictions on sentient and artifact weapons is when sending the weapon to a extradimensional for storage, the answer is you can't. So as long as you keep it in a normal sheath you should fine.
Also I agree with you on that your patron is the sentient object itself, especially with the change they are doing to the Raven Queen. However why stop at sentient weapons, the spell list given would be perfectly with the Ring of Winter being your patron. Subtly controlling your actions to seek it out and bring about it's mission.
Players keep saying well "I have this magic sentient weapon of great power but only the Hex Warrior Channeled weapon works with it but the pact of the blade doesn't which does make since".
Actually I was rereading the pact of blade recently and I noticed that the only time it mentions restrictions on sentient and artifact weapons is when sending the weapon to a extradimensional for storage, the answer is you can't. So as long as you keep it in a normal sheath you should fine.
Also I agree with you on that your patron is the sentient object itself, especially with the change they are doing to the Raven Queen. However why stop at sentient weapons, the spell list given would be perfectly with the Ring of Winter being your patron. Subtly controlling your actions to seek it out and bring about it's mission.
I beg to differ:
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.
I read that as not being able to perform the ritual on a sentient weapon. If not, I think the wording would be different.
How I see it if you can't do the ritual on in then why would they put the statement about sentient and artifact after the part talking about extradimensional space instead of the ritual
How I see it if you can't do the ritual on in then why would they put the statement about sentient and artifact after the part talking about extradimensional space instead of the ritual
Likely because the two statements go together and the latter is just identifying the cirumstance under which this doesn't work. It would break the flow of the statement to stop in the middle, give the circumstance, then continue.
"Well, you have to get up, eat breakfast and go to church. After that there's work around the house to be done. Unless you aren't religious. Then you just have work to do after breakfast."
vs
"Well, you have to get up, eat breakfast and go to church. Or not, if you aren't religious. After that, there's work to do around the house."
Both are technically right, (If you ignore the semantics and grammar concerns) but with the latter, the thought is broken into two by a separate thought.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
I guess that makes sense. Still I would think it would acceptable if the Hexblade could at least get the full ability to use their Patron in their hand(s) if they are going with the idea that Hexblades have a sentient item as their Patron, instead of the Raven Queen.
I guess that makes sense. Still I would think it would acceptable if the Hexblade could at least get the full ability to use their Patron in their hand(s) if they are going with the idea that Hexblades have a sentient item as their Patron, instead of the Raven Queen.
I have a hard time seeing a patron allowing itself to be wielded directly by one of their warlocks, at least outside of special story-related circumstances - like, for this one epic campaign ending battle only, in which case, rules can go out the window in the name of fun. But normal day to day game play - the patron, even though it takes the form of a sentient weapon, is NOT going to act as a warlock's pact weapon - the patron has a lot bigger fish to fry.
On the other hand, if you are playing some super high powered campaign where everybody in the party has artifacts or legendary magic items, then, hey, fine.
The restriction is there but makes no sense in my eyes. It is counterintuitive storywise and there is no reason powerwise. To my knowledge the pact is the only feat that has such restrictions.
I also do not really get the "the patron would never fight for the Warlock" argument. The example in the rules of a manifestation of the patron is Blackrazor. Blackrazor is a mighty weapon but if somebody with the right alignment finds it and attunes to it, he can use it (because Blackrazor is sentient it will want stuff done by the user, but as long as he does it, Blackrazor is his to use). So why the hell should Blackrazor make a bond with an Eldritch Knight who is nobody to the weapon but not bond with "his" Warlock!? Luckily our DM shares this view ;-)
The restriction is there but makes no sense in my eyes. It is counterintuitive storywise and there is no reason powerwise. To my knowledge the pact is the only feat that has such restrictions.
I also do not really get the "the patron would never fight for the Warlock" argument. The example in the rules of a manifestation of the patron is Blackrazor. Blackrazor is a mighty weapon but if somebody with the right alignment finds it and attunes to it, he can use it (because Blackrazor is sentient it will want stuff done by the user, but as long as he does it, Blackrazor is his to use). So why the hell should Blackrazor make a bond with an Eldritch Knight who is nobody to the weapon but not bond with "his" Warlock!? Luckily our DM shares this view ;-)
- "The restriction is there but makes no sense in my eyes. It is counterintuitive storywise and there is no reason powerwise. To my knowledge the pact is the only feat that has such restrictions." What? Do you uses any other Patrons in combat? I have never seen it. If your playing a Pact of the Tome or Pact of the Chain warlock or Pact of the Blade with any other patron you don't expect to get a free legendary weapon at level 1... So why are you breaking the Narrative of being master of your patron and adding a mechanic that doesn't exist? I wrote the thread because a lot of people are adding these strange ideas that don't exist anywhere but in their mind as class features just because they serve a sentient weapon instead of a Fiend or Arch Fey. Do you justify having your Fiend patron serve you giving you tea, tucking you in at night, and as Pit fiend going into battle for you at level1? I would doubt it, because that would be silly and broken. Which is the whole point of this thread. Now you do you. If your GMing a game and you want your Warlock Player to have level 20 allies and gear at level 1.... Hey do your thing. If however your playing under any other GM, just be warned that is pretty broken and not allowed by rules or excepted as narrative based on the master servant relationship or the design of the class where they specifically blocked it.
- Why would the sentient weapon bond with an Eldritch Knight? Who said it would? it could be a titan weapon 3 stories tall and only wieldable by a god or titan. In that case it wouldn't. I used and example of basically a level 20 character who works for the person who forged the blade as being the wielder but that was just an example. My suggestion is try and build a story that you like and that explains why "You serve it and don't wield it" but if you really want to leave the door open for your GM to let you wield it at some point you could write something like "It is always carried by its most powerful warlock" and if your GM see fit, maybe your GM lets you be that warlock at level 16 or something. All you can do is leave the door open. Your GM will determine if he lets you have it and what it does. After all... there are no rules for this and not stats for these weapons because its not intended for you to ever have them.
- Why would the sentient weapon not bond with its warlocks? Because there are more than one warlock serving this blade, they serve it not the other way around, and for you to carry it you need to at least earn the right (which you will not able to do at level 1 if ever), an ageless weapon of this power surely has at least one warlock of higher power which will be more likely to carry the weapon than you until you get much higher in levels. Also, mechanically a level 1 with any weapon worthy of being a sentient artifact patron is going to be game breaking and no reasonable GM is going to let you have it until it is level appropriate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I have to agree with Clayton here. As if getting a magic weapon that you can summon at will at so low lvl wasnt a bit overpowered already, and lets not forget the ability to wear medium armor while casting spells without using feats and the best cantrip in the game made better with invocations. Being able to control and use your "patron" as that would almost break the game imo.
Now I'm just gong to clarify my opinion this, no where did I ever say that a lvl 1 Hexblade should get sentient weapon from the start. Rather why they can't utilized their Patron physically if it is two-handed, since there is no restriction using sentient one-handed or non-weapons items. The only acceptable way I can see a player getting a sentient weapon at the start is if the DM is going thru a awaken route. Where is weapon is a seemly normal item that can talk to the Hexblade, and only to the Hexblade. Later as the Hexblade levels and accomplishes tasks then the other features on the weapon unlock.
As far as who servers who, this is how I see it. Sentient weapon finds a suitable candidate and offers to be their Patron. It promises them power in exchange they must seek them out and acquire them from their place on confinement. Once the Hexblade finds their Patron they might be able to utilize the their Patron's item benefits, but the sentient item also gains increase influence on the Hexblade's actions. The DMG already lists that sentient items have their own agendas and can potentially control the actions of their wielder. Having a Hexblade actively seeking them out makes it easier to reach their goal.
Quite a eyeopener. Never realized that a Hexblade can use his charisma on any weapon. Ive been mistakenly thinking it only applied to the Pact Weapon. Thanks for the eye opener.
„If your playing a Pact of the Tome or Pact of the Chain warlock or Pact of the Blade with any other patron you don't expect to get a free legendary weapon at level 1”
You cite my post in connection with this statement so you imply I wrote anything like that. Read my post again. I did not.
“So why are you breaking the Narrative of being master of your patron and adding a mechanic that doesn't exist?”
This I do not get. What supposedly breaks what? I did not add any mechanics nor implied that mechanics should be added. The thing I wrote – and I repeat myself – is that the restrictions put upon the blade pact make no sense in general and especially for a Hexblade with regards to his Patron weapon.
“I wrote the thread because a lot of people are adding these strange ideas that don't exist anywhere but in their mind as class features just because they serve a sentient weapon instead of a Fiend or Arch Fey. Do you justify having your Fiend patron serve you giving you tea, tucking you in at night, and as Pit fiend going into battle for you at level1? I would doubt it, because that would be silly and broken. Which is the whole point of this thread. Now you do you. If your GMing a game and you want your Warlock Player to have level 20 allies and gear at level 1.... Hey do your thing. If however your playing under any other GM, just be warned that is pretty broken and not allowed by rules or excepted as narrative based on the master servant relationship or the design of the class where they specifically blocked it”
This is just ranting. And again: I did not write anything like that in case you wanted to imply that.
“Why would the sentient weapon bond with an Eldritch Knight? Who said it would?”
Because the Eldritch Knight has a level 3 feat that allows him to bond with up to two weapons and has no restrictions regarding the weapon (in contrast to the Hexblade).
“but if you really want to leave the door open for your GM to let you wield it at some point you could write something like "It is always carried by its most powerful warlock" and if your GM see fit, maybe your GM lets you be that warlock at level 16 or something. All you can do is leave the door open. Your GM will determine if he lets you have it and what it does.”
Now we are talking. That is exactly my point. It should be possible (not mandatory) for a Hexblade to find its patron weapon and wield it. If your DM is fine with it and it fits into the story it could be the greatest moment for the Hexblade in a campaign. But here comes the big but. If the group finds the probably sentient patron weapon at some epic point in the campaign, every fighter will be able to use all feats and multiattacks and stuff with the weapon. Every fighter except one: the Warlock/Hexblade himself. Because the rules do not allow for a Warlock to bond with a Sentient Weapon and a lot feats that make him a worthwhile warrior in higher levels are invocations (lifedrinker, thirsting blade) only working with the pact weapon or do not work on two handed weapons (hex warrior). So for him, his patron weapon is rulewise not really an option. This is very anticlimactic for the Warlock and there is no reason for that restriction that I can think of.
“After all... there are no rules for this and not stats for these weapons because its not intended for you to ever have them.”
This is wrong. The only example mentioned in the rules is Blackrazor. You find stats of Blackrazor in the DMG.
“- Why would the sentient weapon not bond with its warlocks? Because there are more than one warlock serving this blade, they serve it not the other way around, and for you to carry it you need to at least earn the right (which you will not able to do at level 1 if ever), an ageless weapon of this power surely has at least one warlock of higher power which will be more likely to carry the weapon than you until you get much higher in levels. Also, mechanically a level 1 with any weapon worthy of being a sentient artifact patron is going to be game breaking and no reasonable GM is going to let you have it until it is level appropriate.”
See above.
In fantasy lots of things and views are valid. Also it is a game. In most fantasy literature regarding powerful weapons with will or intent the weapon wants one thing though: to be wielded. It usually is the sole purpose of a weapon. Again Blackrazor is a very good example. It wants to drink souls and will try to persuade or force a wielder to use it to kill. For that it has to be wielded in the first place. So also or especially sentient weapons usually will want to be picked up and used. Where you get it from that they do not want a Warlock serving them to do that I don’t know. But I imagine that the sentient blade lying in a dark cellar for decades or centuries and now found by one of his servants would rather not command him to just let it rot a few additional decades because there is some more powerful servant out there somewhere. And by the rules even the most potent of the weapon’s Warlocks would not be able to make use of his given powers with the weapon. And this is what bugs me.
Its an odd rule to exclude the Hexblade, well any pact of the blade warlock, from weilding an artifact or sentient weapon while all other more martial and gish classes can. It does make sense though, to an extent. I mean, shutting an artifact or sentient weapon into a pocket demension doesn't make sense to me at all.
I guess, if we're looking at it from a magic standpoint, a Warlock can't control an artifact or sentient weapon with their magic like they could all the other weapons. Invocations and the like are them affecting the world through magic, not like a warrior who gets multi attack from sheer martial prowess.
Grant it in a home campaign my younger brother is a hexblade and his long term goal is to take his patron (who is a magic toothpick that makes him look human instead of a teifling so long as he has the toothpick in his mouth.) And make it into either a worthy weapon or free its soul. Home games can do all sorts of stuff, so its a rule you can pretty much ignore if it doesn't fit your game.
I guess that when designing the Blade Pact and excluding Artifacts and Sentient weapons it was kind of overseen that this in fact excludes Warlocks from using such weapons effectively (in contrast to all other Gishes). This is a big fun-killer for which there is no need. If the interpretation was that the Bladelock is only unable to put the weapon in another dimension that would be fine. But excluding a (sub)class from the coolest items there probably are for said (sub)class is just bad. It does not stop there too. Spells like Shadow Blade also can not be used effectively by Bladelocks in general and Hexblades specifically. The only way to make it work would be a dex or str Bladelock using it as offhand weapon. But again, no lifedrinker, no thirsting blade no cha as relevant attribute. When I read the spell I was like yeah, cool stuff for a Hexblade. When I looked at the mechanics I thought, well, only for Sorcadins, Eldritch Knights, Bards or Bladesingers...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I am seeing a lot of posts on different D&D forums about players trying to wrap their heads around the Hexblade because they notice it says you can't use a sentient weapon as your pact weapon. Players keep saying well "I have this magic sentient weapon of great power but only the Hex Warrior Channeled weapon works with it but the pact of the blade doesn't which does make since".
Please stop and look again. No where does it say you GET an artifact hexblade as a weapon. The Hexblade is your patron not your tool or your servant. You don't get a Demon to hit people with if you chose the Fiend patron. This is the same thing. I do understand the confusion because you hear you get your power from a magic sword you assume for some reason you get the sword but try to look at it a different way. Patrons create many warlocks not just one. An Arch Fey or Fiend might have 5 or 100 warlocks under its patronage and the Hexblade is no different. It actually makes since that the blade is held by some other than you "knighting warlocks" in the service of a greater entity.
Just for example: Lets consider the Raven Queen for a moment since that is the most common source for HexBlades. She can make Clerics and Paladins directly but she is also trying to grow and army in the Shadow Fel to fight Vecna and his Sentient undead menions. It makes more since that she gave a Hexblade to Paladin and told him to go around recruiting worthy followers to her cause. She gives the this Paladin the mission but she knows he can't be expected to judge who is worth and who is not and at the same time she is delegating this task so she doesn't want to have to personally check and verify each candidate her self. So she imbues a sword with a powerful sentience and her will. When a paladin finds a candidate, the paladin attempts to "knight" the candidate by touching them on the shoulder with the Hexblade. The HexBlade enters their mind, makes and offer, and if they both agree to it the Hexblade grants some of its power (second hand from the Raven Queen) to the candidate and they become a Hexblade Warlock. The paladin then leaves with the Hexblade to recruit more warlocks.
Not just a melee blade: Now that's just an example and if you take pact of the blade you could say your pact weapon is a manifest as a mirror image of your hexblade patron but its not required. You could also, be pact of the chain with a raven familiar (again not required), or even a pack of the tome with an image of Hexblade on the cover with a raven behind it (still not required). The reason I point this out is that the "Hexblade's curse" and all other hexblade abilities (except the Hex Warrior channeled weapon) work equally as well with eldritch blast as it does your pact weapon meaning that their is no requirement that you build a melee based warlock or pact of the blade. In fact "Hex Warrior" provided armor and shield is still good on a ranged caster and only the martial proficiency and channeled Hex Warrior weapon is useful in melee and is pretty much redundant to the pact of the blade pact weapon because you are automatically proficient with your pact weapon. So in the end the only thing useful for a Hexblade Warlock in melee over being a caster is that "Hex Warrior" can use charisma for its melee attack and damage instead of strength or dex. This is actually very useful as a pact of a Tome or Chain warlock because if means you can still use weapon for melee opportunity attacks and make dex and strength dumb stats to focus on Charisma and Constitution (not that recommend that I am just saying its makes it a stronger option). As a melee Pact of the Blade, you still might not want to dumb those stats if you want dex for AC bonus or Strength to knock people prone with your first attack from Thirsty-Blade for example.
You can play how you want, if your GM is willing to give you a Legendary HexBlade so you can go around "Knighting" warlocks, that's fine. But you are likely to use your pact blade for melee combat since the Hexblade can not be your pack weapon and it is actually a very good subclass for caster based warlocks who just use a dagger for an opportunity attack with hex warrior once in a while. If you can make that separation of a Hexblade as a patron and not a weapon you get at level one in your mind, the confusion I see in a lot of people thinking of the subclass as strictly melee and trying to use a weapon you shouldn't have and which might actually weaken you in combat will clear up. I hope this helps the people confused by the perceived contradiction and /or open up this option for people who wrote it off as a "melee subclass". I have seen quite a few posts stuck on both.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Actually the hexblade patron is a "mysterious entity from the ShadowFell" that manifests in this plane in sentient weapons, so it is possible that you have been empowered by that entity without ever coming near a sentient weapon, IMO. The same force that creates those weapons may have entered into a pact with a warlock, thereby encouraging Pact of the Tome or Chain rather than Blade.
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I wasn't very clear, I found your post well thought out and it provides a great example. I was just trying to highlight that there didn't need to be a weapon involved at all in the formation of the pact.
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
For mine, I found a shard of an ancient sentient weapon and embedded it into my arm (Accidentally at first. Long story.) and it acted like a conduit through which the sentient weapon channels power and knowledge. After having the shard embedded, the link has already been established and with it's removal doesn't mean I lose my power. But while I have the power, I have the urge to hunt down the owner of the shard (The sentient weapon) and while the shard is embedded, that urge is significantly higher. So far, that's as far into the story I've gotten.
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
Actually I was rereading the pact of blade recently and I noticed that the only time it mentions restrictions on sentient and artifact weapons is when sending the weapon to a extradimensional for storage, the answer is you can't. So as long as you keep it in a normal sheath you should fine.
Also I agree with you on that your patron is the sentient object itself, especially with the change they are doing to the Raven Queen. However why stop at sentient weapons, the spell list given would be perfectly with the Ring of Winter being your patron. Subtly controlling your actions to seek it out and bring about it's mission.
How I see it if you can't do the ritual on in then why would they put the statement about sentient and artifact after the part talking about extradimensional space instead of the ritual
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
I guess that makes sense. Still I would think it would acceptable if the Hexblade could at least get the full ability to use their Patron in their hand(s) if they are going with the idea that Hexblades have a sentient item as their Patron, instead of the Raven Queen.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/06/29/clarify-blade-pact-cant-make-sentient-weapon-a-pact-weapon/
The restriction is there but makes no sense in my eyes. It is counterintuitive storywise and there is no reason powerwise. To my knowledge the pact is the only feat that has such restrictions.
I also do not really get the "the patron would never fight for the Warlock" argument. The example in the rules of a manifestation of the patron is Blackrazor. Blackrazor is a mighty weapon but if somebody with the right alignment finds it and attunes to it, he can use it (because Blackrazor is sentient it will want stuff done by the user, but as long as he does it, Blackrazor is his to use). So why the hell should Blackrazor make a bond with an Eldritch Knight who is nobody to the weapon but not bond with "his" Warlock!? Luckily our DM shares this view ;-)
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
I have to agree with Clayton here. As if getting a magic weapon that you can summon at will at so low lvl wasnt a bit overpowered already, and lets not forget the ability to wear medium armor while casting spells without using feats and the best cantrip in the game made better with invocations. Being able to control and use your "patron" as that would almost break the game imo.
Now I'm just gong to clarify my opinion this, no where did I ever say that a lvl 1 Hexblade should get sentient weapon from the start. Rather why they can't utilized their Patron physically if it is two-handed, since there is no restriction using sentient one-handed or non-weapons items. The only acceptable way I can see a player getting a sentient weapon at the start is if the DM is going thru a awaken route. Where is weapon is a seemly normal item that can talk to the Hexblade, and only to the Hexblade. Later as the Hexblade levels and accomplishes tasks then the other features on the weapon unlock.
As far as who servers who, this is how I see it. Sentient weapon finds a suitable candidate and offers to be their Patron. It promises them power in exchange they must seek them out and acquire them from their place on confinement. Once the Hexblade finds their Patron they might be able to utilize the their Patron's item benefits, but the sentient item also gains increase influence on the Hexblade's actions. The DMG already lists that sentient items have their own agendas and can potentially control the actions of their wielder. Having a Hexblade actively seeking them out makes it easier to reach their goal.
I hope this clears up my stance on things.
Quite a eyeopener. Never realized that a Hexblade can use his charisma on any weapon. Ive been mistakenly thinking it only applied to the Pact Weapon. Thanks for the eye opener.
„If your playing a Pact of the Tome or Pact of the Chain warlock or Pact of the Blade with any other patron you don't expect to get a free legendary weapon at level 1”
You cite my post in connection with this statement so you imply I wrote anything like that. Read my post again. I did not.
“So why are you breaking the Narrative of being master of your patron and adding a mechanic that doesn't exist?”
This I do not get. What supposedly breaks what? I did not add any mechanics nor implied that mechanics should be added. The thing I wrote – and I repeat myself – is that the restrictions put upon the blade pact make no sense in general and especially for a Hexblade with regards to his Patron weapon.
“I wrote the thread because a lot of people are adding these strange ideas that don't exist anywhere but in their mind as class features just because they serve a sentient weapon instead of a Fiend or Arch Fey. Do you justify having your Fiend patron serve you giving you tea, tucking you in at night, and as Pit fiend going into battle for you at level1? I would doubt it, because that would be silly and broken. Which is the whole point of this thread. Now you do you. If your GMing a game and you want your Warlock Player to have level 20 allies and gear at level 1.... Hey do your thing. If however your playing under any other GM, just be warned that is pretty broken and not allowed by rules or excepted as narrative based on the master servant relationship or the design of the class where they specifically blocked it”
This is just ranting. And again: I did not write anything like that in case you wanted to imply that.
“Why would the sentient weapon bond with an Eldritch Knight? Who said it would?”
Because the Eldritch Knight has a level 3 feat that allows him to bond with up to two weapons and has no restrictions regarding the weapon (in contrast to the Hexblade).
“but if you really want to leave the door open for your GM to let you wield it at some point you could write something like "It is always carried by its most powerful warlock" and if your GM see fit, maybe your GM lets you be that warlock at level 16 or something. All you can do is leave the door open. Your GM will determine if he lets you have it and what it does.”
Now we are talking. That is exactly my point. It should be possible (not mandatory) for a Hexblade to find its patron weapon and wield it. If your DM is fine with it and it fits into the story it could be the greatest moment for the Hexblade in a campaign. But here comes the big but. If the group finds the probably sentient patron weapon at some epic point in the campaign, every fighter will be able to use all feats and multiattacks and stuff with the weapon. Every fighter except one: the Warlock/Hexblade himself. Because the rules do not allow for a Warlock to bond with a Sentient Weapon and a lot feats that make him a worthwhile warrior in higher levels are invocations (lifedrinker, thirsting blade) only working with the pact weapon or do not work on two handed weapons (hex warrior). So for him, his patron weapon is rulewise not really an option. This is very anticlimactic for the Warlock and there is no reason for that restriction that I can think of.
“After all... there are no rules for this and not stats for these weapons because its not intended for you to ever have them.”
This is wrong. The only example mentioned in the rules is Blackrazor. You find stats of Blackrazor in the DMG.
“- Why would the sentient weapon not bond with its warlocks? Because there are more than one warlock serving this blade, they serve it not the other way around, and for you to carry it you need to at least earn the right (which you will not able to do at level 1 if ever), an ageless weapon of this power surely has at least one warlock of higher power which will be more likely to carry the weapon than you until you get much higher in levels. Also, mechanically a level 1 with any weapon worthy of being a sentient artifact patron is going to be game breaking and no reasonable GM is going to let you have it until it is level appropriate.”
See above.
In fantasy lots of things and views are valid. Also it is a game. In most fantasy literature regarding powerful weapons with will or intent the weapon wants one thing though: to be wielded. It usually is the sole purpose of a weapon. Again Blackrazor is a very good example. It wants to drink souls and will try to persuade or force a wielder to use it to kill. For that it has to be wielded in the first place. So also or especially sentient weapons usually will want to be picked up and used. Where you get it from that they do not want a Warlock serving them to do that I don’t know. But I imagine that the sentient blade lying in a dark cellar for decades or centuries and now found by one of his servants would rather not command him to just let it rot a few additional decades because there is some more powerful servant out there somewhere. And by the rules even the most potent of the weapon’s Warlocks would not be able to make use of his given powers with the weapon. And this is what bugs me.
Its an odd rule to exclude the Hexblade, well any pact of the blade warlock, from weilding an artifact or sentient weapon while all other more martial and gish classes can. It does make sense though, to an extent. I mean, shutting an artifact or sentient weapon into a pocket demension doesn't make sense to me at all.
I guess, if we're looking at it from a magic standpoint, a Warlock can't control an artifact or sentient weapon with their magic like they could all the other weapons. Invocations and the like are them affecting the world through magic, not like a warrior who gets multi attack from sheer martial prowess.
Grant it in a home campaign my younger brother is a hexblade and his long term goal is to take his patron (who is a magic toothpick that makes him look human instead of a teifling so long as he has the toothpick in his mouth.) And make it into either a worthy weapon or free its soul. Home games can do all sorts of stuff, so its a rule you can pretty much ignore if it doesn't fit your game.
I guess that when designing the Blade Pact and excluding Artifacts and Sentient weapons it was kind of overseen that this in fact excludes Warlocks from using such weapons effectively (in contrast to all other Gishes). This is a big fun-killer for which there is no need. If the interpretation was that the Bladelock is only unable to put the weapon in another dimension that would be fine. But excluding a (sub)class from the coolest items there probably are for said (sub)class is just bad. It does not stop there too. Spells like Shadow Blade also can not be used effectively by Bladelocks in general and Hexblades specifically. The only way to make it work would be a dex or str Bladelock using it as offhand weapon. But again, no lifedrinker, no thirsting blade no cha as relevant attribute. When I read the spell I was like yeah, cool stuff for a Hexblade. When I looked at the mechanics I thought, well, only for Sorcadins, Eldritch Knights, Bards or Bladesingers...