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.
At lvl 1 the Hexblade gets the Hex Warrior which, in additional to adding proficiencies, allows them to channel their will through a weapon. There is a restriction that the weapon must lack the two-handed property, unless it is a pact weapon conjured from the Pact of the Blade feature.
This is the big problem I have with it. No where does it say that Hex Warrior won't work with sentient or legendary weapons, only when it involves the Pact of the Blade. So as far as the current official sentient weapon list a Hexblade can use Hex Warrior on Dawnbringer, Moonblade, or Whelm, but not Blackrazor(the one that is mentioned in the Hexblade description), Hazirawn, Orcsplitter, Wave, and Waythe.
“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.
...omitted...
--Your other post:
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...
So your implied that I did not read your paragraph but I did. I re-read it and felt the same. I did however, realize where we are not in sink with the reply part that I copied above and a post you made later, see the misunderstanding ... perhaps on both our parts.
So your saying why can't Warlocks use Artifact / Sentient Weapons with their abilities by in general. (which would include but is not limited to your patron).
I am saying they limited Artifact / Sentient Weapons just to ensure your patron can't end up as your servant and break that concept in players mentally. The majority of post I have seen mistake that the HexBlade Patron should serve the warlock underling it creates. My "why would it serve and Eldritch Knight" is specific to you a HexBlade, not just an artifact. I would image a Hexblade only serving its Deity creator, but I get your saying the Eldritch Knight could bond with it and summon its physical form.
So I think they could have just specified clearly that you don't get a Hexblade weapon as part of your pact and/or possibility removed the limitation of No Artifact / No Sentient weapon restriction at level 10 if they really wanted to keep it to open up the option as you suggested.
ShadowBlade "It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." I might suggest that it works with HexWorrior, I kind of feel like its on the warlock list to give none bladelock builds a melee attack, the way the put Green-Flame Blade, Booming Blade, and ShadowBlade on the sorcerer spell list even thought that is full caster class. Oddly enough just like not making ShadowBlade useful for bladelocks they also didn't give any of these 3 scaling melee damage spells to Rangers to fix the fact at level 2 it looks like Ranger could be archers, wield a single weapon, or two-weapons based on fighting style options but then they only ever give scaling damage spells to archers meaning that a melee ranger does the same damage from level 5 - level 20 (with some minor subclass exceptions) while everyone around them has scaling damage some how. So I think see what they were thinking but I can see the annoyance. I am playing a Tome Lock "scout" with decent dex right now and I am glad to have a melee option for opportunity attacks. At the same time its on pare with Eldritch smite, so I feel like they put it in to ccount for that. Unfortunately, Eldritch smite only gives you one hit per spell slot so my tomelock it able to get more damage out of it than a bladelock out of Eldritch smite in single battle. The only reason I would consider the Bladelock better is with thirsty blade, lifedrinker, and eldritch smite bladelocks can nova at level 5 like no other class I know. So I agree with you, its a concern of mine as well. It might actually make more since if ShadowBlade was d6s instead of d8s or if you could apply it over your pact weapon for the same number of dice in d4s, compatible with thirsty blade, life drinker, and eldritch smite.
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.
ClaytonCross why do you keep bring up that any sentient item that is used by a player is under the complete control of the player. In the DMG it is made clear that the sentient item works with the player, until they do something against their goal. Once that happens the sentient item will attempt to take over the players mind, making them a passenger in their own body.
Besides it really depends on how the DM handles said sentient item. I'm sure no matter what, any patron would be upset if their patronee starts going against their wishes. In the case of sentient item patron where the patronee is in possession of their physical vessel, I could see that punishment being more severe due to the direct connection.
Also it occurred to me that you could also to the dwarven ancestral weapons that we're mentioned in 3.5e Races of Stone. Where your patron is a ancester, whose ashes where imbued into a weapon giving it sentient properties. Now this would mean that the player would start with a sentient item, but as I said in a previous post, this could be balance by making the abilities of the weapon either suppressed until the player reaches a higher lvl, or weakened and gradually strengthens each level. Something like this would need the DM and player to work together for it to work.
ClaytonCross why do you keep bring up that any sentient item that is used by a player is under the complete control of the player. In the DMG it is made clear that the sentient item works with the player, until they do something against their goal. Once that happens the sentient item will attempt to take over the players mind, making them a passenger in their own body.
Besides it really depends on how the DM handles said sentient item. I'm sure no matter what, any patron would be upset if their patronee starts going against their wishes. In the case of sentient item patron where the patronee is in possession of their physical vessel, I could see that punishment being more severe due to the direct connection.
Also it occurred to me that you could also to the dwarven ancestral weapons that we're mentioned in 3.5e Races of Stone. Where your patron is a ancester, whose ashes where imbued into a weapon giving it sentient properties. Now this would mean that the player would start with a sentient item, but as I said in a previous post, this could be balance by making the abilities of the weapon either suppressed until the player reaches a higher lvl, or weakened and gradually strengthens each level. Something like this would need the DM and player to work together for it to work.
The answer to your first paragraph and your last paragraph is your second paragraph. Its about your desired style of play verses an intended class design.
You could just as easily have the your dwarven ancestral weapon at level 1 be a mages staff and the class be a wizard. If you give Dawnbringer, Moonblade, Whelm, Blackrazor, Hazirawn, Orcsplitter, Wave, and Waythe to a level 1 wizard he will still be broken powerful. Being a warlock here does not matter. So your scaling it for later to not be broken... sure, still being a warlock hexblade pact of the blade does not matter. Its just a way of play and a story background your GM is letting you use. While I agree that It doesn't make mechanical since that Eldritch Knights can bond with sentient weapons but warlocks can't... I do think it is still worth it for a Pact of the Blade Warlock with hexblade to wield a sentient artifact weapon because most of them are pretty good no matter who uses them.
My argument and why I keep bring up the possible design conflicts dependent on play style is because there are honestly people who think the hexblade gets a sentient legendary sword at level 1 for the same reason your stuck on the warlock having this "partner" who grants you all your power and can try to take over your body if you disobey. Your not describing a partner or a patron here just a sentient weapon. I get that your looking at an object that could be both. I think game designers put the restriction because players keep wanting to make that leap and they didn't want every hexblade warlock to be pact of the blade running around with sentient weapon "because they are a hexblade" and that is also their patron.
Their is nothing about your design that requires your patron and the sentient weapon your complaining not being able to use be the same weapon. If you were a Fiend patron Warlock trying to use a sentient weapon it would be understandable for the Fiend to not be willing to allow the warlock to bond with another sentient entity. So the only real conflict is when your patron is a weapon and you can't or don't want to let go of the idea of you wielding it. This fixation on hex blade warlocks wielding sentient weapons is *to me* a source of conflict with this subclass that other warlocks don't see even if they are pact of the blade. I get you don't like it, I get why you don't like it, but does it break the class or subclass in any way to not be able to make a sentient weapon your pact weapon? I don't think it does. ...I feel like if this subclass was exactly the same but called "Raven's Hex" and their patron was the Raven Queen, it would not be an issue since its pretty rare for Legendary, artifact, sentient weapons to show up in most campaigns that I have seen.
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.
Ok lets go thru things based on the listed rules of 5e.
Pact of Blade can not work with sentient or artifact weapons, they can however work with the other 13 non-sentient legendary weapons
Hex Warrior CHA bonus can work on sentient or artifact weapons that don't have the two-handed property, according to a sage advice this doesn't prevent from using Versatile weapons
Now when it comes to sentient items, nothing about them being sentient makes them OP, just look at Dawnbringer. It is a sentient Sun Blade that also provides the ability to, once per day, touch someone with the blade and cast Lesser Restoration. It can also be found as early as lvl 8 in Out of the Abyss. Heck the White Plume Mountain module which contains the big three sentient weapons, Blackrazer, Whelm, and Wave, is a lvl 8 module as well. Those 3 offer much more power then the Dawnbringer.
Moving away from talking about mechanics I will start by saying when I made my first Hexblade I did made her how you talked about in your first post, something of a arcane based Paladin that serves the Raven Queen. However with the change that is happening with the Raven Queen in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, I wanted to imagine her the next time I used her. So I looked at the aspect of what if a sentient item was her patron, and I came up with a Hexblade Swashbuckler who's patron is a former Pirate who was cursed into being a item and decides that since he can no long achieve his dream of become a Pirate Lord, helping another become one using his power is the next best thing. In fact I'm running her Pact of Tome, due to the usefulness of Aspect of the Moon and Book of Ancient Secrets. She will also be using only weapons with the finesse property, and since all finesse weapons don't have the two-handed property I can use Hex Warrior on all of them. That includes Dawnbringer, though since it wouldn't make since character wise I would probably talk to my DM about a homebrew sentient rapier, cutlass, or even a eye-patch to acquire at lvl 8-12.
I have no problem with what you just said. It seems like you have if figured out within the rules or a home brew rapier/eye patch. If your getting it around level 8, lets say its calling to you. It seems like you have a solution that is not game breaking and suites your desire and your not starting with it. If I were your GM, I would be thrilled for the story hook of the call as it gives me a story arc for you to gain it for the group and I like a story hook for each player if I can get one. Hope your GM agrees and it works out for you. I don't know that there is a need for it to be your patron but I would say while I wouldn't typically (as per prior posts) want that to happen, I like your story hook and reason. So I would home brew it as an "apprentice ship" the way you describe it, It sounds like its still a master and your character is in training.... If you decided not to be a pirate or stayed away from the water too long... I might have some negative effects. If you stayed at sea and "followed" it teachings for an extended period I might grant you a bonus that lasts until you leave the coast. Like a ranger "favored terrain high sea" ability... Sounds like fun. That being the case, I might make one of the features of the weapon, be that it counts as a pact weapon as long as you are within its will. So instead of changing the way the Warlock hex warrior / pact features work, I would have it be a feature of the weapon to let you achieve your goal but not actually have to change any rules other than just the creation of the homebrew hexblade patron / weapon on top of that since its a feature of the weapon and not the pact it might act like a pact of the blade even though your pact of the tome. I don't think that is broken at level 8.
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 still don't get why blade pact warlocks can't bond to a sentient weapon or artefact but eldritch knights can with their weapon bond feature. I don't find storing them in an extra dimensional space to be game breaking in any way, the only mechanical difference between the eldritch knight's bonded weapon and the pact weapon will be that you don't have to carry the pact weapon around on you which is pretty much just a minor convenience, not some game or immersion breaking feature.
This seems asinine to me. Why wouldn't a warlock's patron want to claim ownership in whole, both of the power and physical form, of an artifact? Why are you offended at the idea of pocket dimensioning artifacts? Do you not hide stuff in bags of holding?
This seems asinine to me. Why wouldn't a warlock's patron want to claim ownership in whole, both of the power and physical form, of an artifact? Why are you offended at the idea of pocket dimensioning artifacts? Do you not hide stuff in bags of holding?
I am not sure who your aiming your statement at.... I know I am not offended by the idea of the a patron wanting the power of an artifact or and artifact being put in a bag of holding but that's not even something anyone has said but you. What is an issue is players assuming THEY get and artifact level magic weapon at level 1 but that not being RAW or RAI. Also, Warlocks serve Patrons not the other way around. Their is no intent by RAW or RAI from the designers for Hexblade to have or use artifacts, only to serve one which by no means indicates that you get it. The Hexblade could be a giants or Titans sword you could never possibly wield or if you want to alter it to be an eye patch or other item that speaks to you that's fine. MY ONLY CONSERN is that many players are getting hung up on the idea that their patron is a weapon and for some strange reason these players think they are getting equipment than a GM should not give you until about level 17 as starting gear so the design of pact weapons not being allowed to be sentient artifact is (I believe) intended by designers to make this clear in RAW by actually making it not possible. Any attempt to give level 1 characters artifact weapons is strictly homebrew and not part of the class design and using as a pact weapon REQIRES a house rule to nullify the RAW statement "You can’t affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way" . I just want that clear, then if you do it anyway because you want to and your GM is okay with it then its fine as long as your clear it is not a class design and if the other players feel like your over powered... its because you are and the GM should homebrew with some equality or except blame for their divergence from RAW/RAI. Players need to be aware of this misunderstanding to they don't get upset with their GM if their GM says "no you don't get that" because their is nothing that says you do and specifically something that says you can't.
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 still don't get why blade pact warlocks can't bond to a sentient weapon or artefact but eldritch knights can with their weapon bond feature. I don't find storing them in an extra dimensional space to be game breaking in any way, the only mechanical difference between the eldritch knight's bonded weapon and the pact weapon will be that you don't have to carry the pact weapon around on you which is pretty much just a minor convenience, not some game or immersion breaking feature.
I really think the only reason is to make it clear in RAW that your sentient artifact patron is not your weapon to wield and that nothing guarantees you will even see an artifact you can wield in your campaign that is only up to your GM. The could have put just put that in a statement but "You can’t affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way" ensures the GM can say not you can't use your patron as a pact weapon... That said, artifacts are supposed to be extremely rare …. so rare in fact I have never actually seen one show up in a campaign … with that in mind … I wouldn't let you wield your patron but I would let you wield an artifact you found if it came up in campaign. I might even put a story for your to earn a miniature replica of your patron as a gift for pleasing your patron if you were willing to serve your patron diligently enough for it to want to give you a gift. It might not be an artifact but I think an interesting idea is for your patron to give you a basic weapon that it levels up to at or near artifact level if you please your patron... They are doing something like that on critical role with Fjord's weapon … but again it needs to be made clear this is homebrew and not part of the class.
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'm not even talking about obtaining your patron blade. I'm talking about finding an artifact sword. Why wouldn't you want to use it? Why wouldn't your patron sword want you to bind your hex and pact to it, making that artifact part of the patron's repertoire? I don't get it.
The problem is an inconsistency in rules. A Hexblade can use an artifact weapon. As long as it is a one-handed weapon. Hex warrior works with artifacts. Only pact of the blade doesn't. So a Hexblade that took Pact of the Chain and specializes in sword&board, can use an artifact level longsword or a sentient flail. But a Hexblade that takes Pact of the Blade and specializes two handed weapons, can't use an artifact level Greatsword or sentient Maul.
The problem isn't that hexblades don't start out with an artifact. That would be ridiculous. It's that the ones who specializes in two handed weapons get the shaft compared to one handed Warlocks.
I'm not even talking about obtaining your patron blade. I'm talking about finding an artifact sword. Why wouldn't you want to use it? Why wouldn't your patron sword want you to bind your hex and pact to it, making that artifact part of the patron's repertoire? I don't get it.
As I said I think its a rule for the our of game reason of making sure players know they don't get an artifact as part of being a hexblade. So I am talking about that issue as its seems to be the reason for your. That is not saying you are wrong, in fact I agreed with you in the post before. What I am saying is the rule exists to prevent misconceptions of the class and it comes at a cost of some fluff/story reasoning. I think, it really is important that they did that but I would allow homebrew to get around it once its done its job of informing the player because it only has benefit on the front end.
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.
The problem is an inconsistency in rules. A Hexblade can use an artifact weapon. As long as it is a one-handed weapon. Hex warrior works with artifacts. Only pact of the blade doesn't. So a Hexblade that took Pact of the Chain and specializes in sword&board, can use an artifact level longsword or a sentient flail. But a Hexblade that takes Pact of the Blade and specializes two handed weapons, can't use an artifact level Greatsword or sentient Maul.
The problem isn't that hexblades don't start out with an artifact. That would be ridiculous. It's that the ones who specializes in two handed weapons get the shaft compared to one handed Warlocks.
I understand what your saying. I am just saying it was done for a reason, but your right in that Hexblades favor single handed weapons I think this is to reduce the use of pikes polearm master, great weapon master, sentinel characters as they were common builds as Pact of the Blade before hexblades were released. So I think this implies a balance fix that players require more of a buy in to use those builds with the hexblade capabilities. Your Tome and Chain warlocks don't get to be polearm masters, great weapon master, sentinel's that are just as good as pact of the blade without needing the pact of the blade by in. So again, I think this is a balance issue effecting option and really its quite rare that players have artifacts as a rule so I think its the lesser of two evils. Again, If you were playing a Hexblade Pact of the Blade, I might house rule that after level 16 the Pact weapon can be an artifact and then their would be vertically no impact games. If your trying to be a tome warlock wielding an artifact staff for example... you still can you just don't get the hexblade bonus to your melee weapon but they do still apply to your spells so unless your trying to be a pact of the tome and pact of the blade at the same time its not a problem. If you are... then your trying to do what they were trying to prevent you from doing for balance reason. If they didn't the hexblade subclass eliminates the need for the Pact of the Blade entirely.
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.
Still, a Hexblade with pact of the blade can wield an artifact longsword, unlike an artifact glaive. Yet, they cannot use their features like thirsting blade or lifedrinker with the artifact longsword. A Hexblade with pact of the tome can use their features (like booming blade from their tome) with an artifact longsword. Heck, a tomelock can get shillelagh and use the artifact staff you mentioned just fine in melee. This essentially means, that the Hexblades specializing in weapons cannot make full use of their features with artifacts but those specializing in other things can make full use of their features with artifacts. That's just ass backwards, imho.
That Booming Blade spell is pretty nice, especially as a substitute for not being able to use Pact of Blade features for two handed weapons.
Even more so if you pick up Spell Sniper so you can use Booming Blade at reach with a spear or glaive.
Though the fact that you still can't get the Hexblade benefit for two handed is pretty annoying. Even using the reason of balancing is kind of weak because Bladelocks were still pretty powerful having to balance their Str and Cha scores.
Pretty sure my GM and I are breaking the rules, but... we've been discussing most of these aspects, and we are in agreement...
I have a 3rd level Hexblade, and as a part of her backstory, after her first paid contract kill, she was whisked to the Shadowfell, and upon her return she had a Katana. When the handle grew cold, she was supposed to kill something with it. When it grew warm, she was supposed to leave it alone. So, it doesn't talk, or anything, but it can occasionally guide her actions. Usually, it's just a sword, and seems to have minimal impact on everyday actions.
So, I built the katana like a longsword, with the versatile property. My GM gives me the CHA bonus when using it 2-handed, so I guess that's a no-no.
Also, since I mentioned I'd like to do a multi-class Rogue dip, sneak attack is restricted to Finesse weapons. Last session, the handle got cold, and she killed a beast with it. At that point, her sword ShadowReaver became +1 to hit/DAM, became a Finesse weapon (as well as Versatile...) and allowed me to regain a spell slot when I kill something with it (2x/day.)
My assumption is that this sword will probably continue to gain power, but I expect it will also throw a monkey wrench into the works, too. If as I suspect, it's drawn to end the lives of creatures that have cheated death, well... that's going to be our whole party pretty soon...
Pretty sure my GM and I are breaking the rules, but... we've been discussing most of these aspects, and we are in agreement...
I have a 3rd level Hexblade, and as a part of her backstory, after her first paid contract kill, she was whisked to the Shadowfell, and upon her return she had a Katana. When the handle grew cold, she was supposed to kill something with it. When it grew warm, she was supposed to leave it alone. So, it doesn't talk, or anything, but it can occasionally guide her actions. Usually, it's just a sword, and seems to have minimal impact on everyday actions.
So, I built the katana like a longsword, with the versatile property. My GM gives me the CHA bonus when using it 2-handed, so I guess that's a no-no.
Also, since I mentioned I'd like to do a multi-class Rogue dip, sneak attack is restricted to Finesse weapons. Last session, the handle got cold, and she killed a beast with it. At that point, her sword ShadowReaver became +1 to hit/DAM, became a Finesse weapon (as well as Versatile...) and allowed me to regain a spell slot when I kill something with it (2x/day.)
My assumption is that this sword will probably continue to gain power, but I expect it will also throw a monkey wrench into the works, too. If as I suspect, it's drawn to end the lives of creatures that have cheated death, well... that's going to be our whole party pretty soon...
So the weapon is obviously homebrew. The two-handed rule is Hexworior UNLESS its a pact weapon. So your using a homebrew sword as a pact weapon. The only thing that's really "against the rules" is if the homebrew weapon is your patron, but at the same time you could say its not the patron but a gift and focus from your patron used to send you messages and grant you power. Subtle difference but game play is the same. Ultimately your homebrewing and you know it, which means you can do as you wish. All I really want people to know it that per the rules their is nothing about hexblades that grant them a free artifact weapon. Making a scaling weapon is a cool homebrew but as homebrew it has nothing to do with the rule. Just like I have noticed a lot of player thinking hexblades pact of the blade have to use a sword, but I made one with improved pact weapon that changes his back and forth between a whip and a crossbow as a action... which is within the rules. The pact weapon makes him proficient with it no matter the form and their is no requirement to keep a specific weapon form UNLESS you bind a physical magical weapon as your pact weapon.
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.
Ash doesn't really know who exactly her patron is - she only met a shadow person in her Shadowfell "voyage," who told her about the Raven Queen. And, since she found the katana - which guides her actions sometimes - she kind of has 3 options of who her patron really is. Maybe she'll find out, but random works for me for now.
And, her main criminal contact may or may not be a Shadar-kai...
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.
ClaytonCross why do you keep bring up that any sentient item that is used by a player is under the complete control of the player. In the DMG it is made clear that the sentient item works with the player, until they do something against their goal. Once that happens the sentient item will attempt to take over the players mind, making them a passenger in their own body.
Besides it really depends on how the DM handles said sentient item. I'm sure no matter what, any patron would be upset if their patronee starts going against their wishes. In the case of sentient item patron where the patronee is in possession of their physical vessel, I could see that punishment being more severe due to the direct connection.
Also it occurred to me that you could also to the dwarven ancestral weapons that we're mentioned in 3.5e Races of Stone. Where your patron is a ancester, whose ashes where imbued into a weapon giving it sentient properties. Now this would mean that the player would start with a sentient item, but as I said in a previous post, this could be balance by making the abilities of the weapon either suppressed until the player reaches a higher lvl, or weakened and gradually strengthens each level. Something like this would need the DM and player to work together for it to work.
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.
Ok lets go thru things based on the listed rules of 5e.
Pact of Blade can not work with sentient or artifact weapons, they can however work with the other 13 non-sentient legendary weapons
Hex Warrior CHA bonus can work on sentient or artifact weapons that don't have the two-handed property, according to a sage advice this doesn't prevent from using Versatile weapons
Now when it comes to sentient items, nothing about them being sentient makes them OP, just look at Dawnbringer. It is a sentient Sun Blade that also provides the ability to, once per day, touch someone with the blade and cast Lesser Restoration. It can also be found as early as lvl 8 in Out of the Abyss. Heck the White Plume Mountain module which contains the big three sentient weapons, Blackrazer, Whelm, and Wave, is a lvl 8 module as well. Those 3 offer much more power then the Dawnbringer.
Moving away from talking about mechanics I will start by saying when I made my first Hexblade I did made her how you talked about in your first post, something of a arcane based Paladin that serves the Raven Queen. However with the change that is happening with the Raven Queen in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, I wanted to imagine her the next time I used her. So I looked at the aspect of what if a sentient item was her patron, and I came up with a Hexblade Swashbuckler who's patron is a former Pirate who was cursed into being a item and decides that since he can no long achieve his dream of become a Pirate Lord, helping another become one using his power is the next best thing. In fact I'm running her Pact of Tome, due to the usefulness of Aspect of the Moon and Book of Ancient Secrets. She will also be using only weapons with the finesse property, and since all finesse weapons don't have the two-handed property I can use Hex Warrior on all of them. That includes Dawnbringer, though since it wouldn't make since character wise I would probably talk to my DM about a homebrew sentient rapier, cutlass, or even a eye-patch to acquire at lvl 8-12.
I have no problem with what you just said. It seems like you have if figured out within the rules or a home brew rapier/eye patch. If your getting it around level 8, lets say its calling to you. It seems like you have a solution that is not game breaking and suites your desire and your not starting with it. If I were your GM, I would be thrilled for the story hook of the call as it gives me a story arc for you to gain it for the group and I like a story hook for each player if I can get one. Hope your GM agrees and it works out for you. I don't know that there is a need for it to be your patron but I would say while I wouldn't typically (as per prior posts) want that to happen, I like your story hook and reason. So I would home brew it as an "apprentice ship" the way you describe it, It sounds like its still a master and your character is in training.... If you decided not to be a pirate or stayed away from the water too long... I might have some negative effects. If you stayed at sea and "followed" it teachings for an extended period I might grant you a bonus that lasts until you leave the coast. Like a ranger "favored terrain high sea" ability... Sounds like fun. That being the case, I might make one of the features of the weapon, be that it counts as a pact weapon as long as you are within its will. So instead of changing the way the Warlock hex warrior / pact features work, I would have it be a feature of the weapon to let you achieve your goal but not actually have to change any rules other than just the creation of the homebrew hexblade patron / weapon on top of that since its a feature of the weapon and not the pact it might act like a pact of the blade even though your pact of the tome. I don't think that is broken at level 8.
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 still don't get why blade pact warlocks can't bond to a sentient weapon or artefact but eldritch knights can with their weapon bond feature. I don't find storing them in an extra dimensional space to be game breaking in any way, the only mechanical difference between the eldritch knight's bonded weapon and the pact weapon will be that you don't have to carry the pact weapon around on you which is pretty much just a minor convenience, not some game or immersion breaking feature.
This seems asinine to me. Why wouldn't a warlock's patron want to claim ownership in whole, both of the power and physical form, of an artifact? Why are you offended at the idea of pocket dimensioning artifacts? Do you not hide stuff in bags of holding?
I am not sure who your aiming your statement at.... I know I am not offended by the idea of the a patron wanting the power of an artifact or and artifact being put in a bag of holding but that's not even something anyone has said but you. What is an issue is players assuming THEY get and artifact level magic weapon at level 1 but that not being RAW or RAI. Also, Warlocks serve Patrons not the other way around. Their is no intent by RAW or RAI from the designers for Hexblade to have or use artifacts, only to serve one which by no means indicates that you get it. The Hexblade could be a giants or Titans sword you could never possibly wield or if you want to alter it to be an eye patch or other item that speaks to you that's fine. MY ONLY CONSERN is that many players are getting hung up on the idea that their patron is a weapon and for some strange reason these players think they are getting equipment than a GM should not give you until about level 17 as starting gear so the design of pact weapons not being allowed to be sentient artifact is (I believe) intended by designers to make this clear in RAW by actually making it not possible. Any attempt to give level 1 characters artifact weapons is strictly homebrew and not part of the class design and using as a pact weapon REQIRES a house rule to nullify the RAW statement "You can’t affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way" . I just want that clear, then if you do it anyway because you want to and your GM is okay with it then its fine as long as your clear it is not a class design and if the other players feel like your over powered... its because you are and the GM should homebrew with some equality or except blame for their divergence from RAW/RAI. Players need to be aware of this misunderstanding to they don't get upset with their GM if their GM says "no you don't get that" because their is nothing that says you do and specifically something that says you can't.
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 really think the only reason is to make it clear in RAW that your sentient artifact patron is not your weapon to wield and that nothing guarantees you will even see an artifact you can wield in your campaign that is only up to your GM. The could have put just put that in a statement but "You can’t affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way" ensures the GM can say not you can't use your patron as a pact weapon... That said, artifacts are supposed to be extremely rare …. so rare in fact I have never actually seen one show up in a campaign … with that in mind … I wouldn't let you wield your patron but I would let you wield an artifact you found if it came up in campaign. I might even put a story for your to earn a miniature replica of your patron as a gift for pleasing your patron if you were willing to serve your patron diligently enough for it to want to give you a gift. It might not be an artifact but I think an interesting idea is for your patron to give you a basic weapon that it levels up to at or near artifact level if you please your patron... They are doing something like that on critical role with Fjord's weapon … but again it needs to be made clear this is homebrew and not part of the class.
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'm not even talking about obtaining your patron blade. I'm talking about finding an artifact sword. Why wouldn't you want to use it? Why wouldn't your patron sword want you to bind your hex and pact to it, making that artifact part of the patron's repertoire? I don't get it.
The problem is an inconsistency in rules. A Hexblade can use an artifact weapon. As long as it is a one-handed weapon. Hex warrior works with artifacts. Only pact of the blade doesn't. So a Hexblade that took Pact of the Chain and specializes in sword&board, can use an artifact level longsword or a sentient flail. But a Hexblade that takes Pact of the Blade and specializes two handed weapons, can't use an artifact level Greatsword or sentient Maul.
The problem isn't that hexblades don't start out with an artifact. That would be ridiculous. It's that the ones who specializes in two handed weapons get the shaft compared to one handed Warlocks.
As I said I think its a rule for the our of game reason of making sure players know they don't get an artifact as part of being a hexblade. So I am talking about that issue as its seems to be the reason for your. That is not saying you are wrong, in fact I agreed with you in the post before. What I am saying is the rule exists to prevent misconceptions of the class and it comes at a cost of some fluff/story reasoning. I think, it really is important that they did that but I would allow homebrew to get around it once its done its job of informing the player because it only has benefit on the front end.
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 understand what your saying. I am just saying it was done for a reason, but your right in that Hexblades favor single handed weapons I think this is to reduce the use of pikes polearm master, great weapon master, sentinel characters as they were common builds as Pact of the Blade before hexblades were released. So I think this implies a balance fix that players require more of a buy in to use those builds with the hexblade capabilities. Your Tome and Chain warlocks don't get to be polearm masters, great weapon master, sentinel's that are just as good as pact of the blade without needing the pact of the blade by in. So again, I think this is a balance issue effecting option and really its quite rare that players have artifacts as a rule so I think its the lesser of two evils. Again, If you were playing a Hexblade Pact of the Blade, I might house rule that after level 16 the Pact weapon can be an artifact and then their would be vertically no impact games. If your trying to be a tome warlock wielding an artifact staff for example... you still can you just don't get the hexblade bonus to your melee weapon but they do still apply to your spells so unless your trying to be a pact of the tome and pact of the blade at the same time its not a problem. If you are... then your trying to do what they were trying to prevent you from doing for balance reason. If they didn't the hexblade subclass eliminates the need for the Pact of the Blade entirely.
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.
Still, a Hexblade with pact of the blade can wield an artifact longsword, unlike an artifact glaive. Yet, they cannot use their features like thirsting blade or lifedrinker with the artifact longsword. A Hexblade with pact of the tome can use their features (like booming blade from their tome) with an artifact longsword. Heck, a tomelock can get shillelagh and use the artifact staff you mentioned just fine in melee. This essentially means, that the Hexblades specializing in weapons cannot make full use of their features with artifacts but those specializing in other things can make full use of their features with artifacts. That's just ass backwards, imho.
That Booming Blade spell is pretty nice, especially as a substitute for not being able to use Pact of Blade features for two handed weapons.
Even more so if you pick up Spell Sniper so you can use Booming Blade at reach with a spear or glaive.
Though the fact that you still can't get the Hexblade benefit for two handed is pretty annoying. Even using the reason of balancing is kind of weak because Bladelocks were still pretty powerful having to balance their Str and Cha scores.
Pretty sure my GM and I are breaking the rules, but... we've been discussing most of these aspects, and we are in agreement...
I have a 3rd level Hexblade, and as a part of her backstory, after her first paid contract kill, she was whisked to the Shadowfell, and upon her return she had a Katana. When the handle grew cold, she was supposed to kill something with it. When it grew warm, she was supposed to leave it alone. So, it doesn't talk, or anything, but it can occasionally guide her actions. Usually, it's just a sword, and seems to have minimal impact on everyday actions.
So, I built the katana like a longsword, with the versatile property. My GM gives me the CHA bonus when using it 2-handed, so I guess that's a no-no.
Also, since I mentioned I'd like to do a multi-class Rogue dip, sneak attack is restricted to Finesse weapons. Last session, the handle got cold, and she killed a beast with it. At that point, her sword ShadowReaver became +1 to hit/DAM, became a Finesse weapon (as well as Versatile...) and allowed me to regain a spell slot when I kill something with it (2x/day.)
My assumption is that this sword will probably continue to gain power, but I expect it will also throw a monkey wrench into the works, too. If as I suspect, it's drawn to end the lives of creatures that have cheated death, well... that's going to be our whole party pretty soon...
So the weapon is obviously homebrew. The two-handed rule is Hexworior UNLESS its a pact weapon. So your using a homebrew sword as a pact weapon. The only thing that's really "against the rules" is if the homebrew weapon is your patron, but at the same time you could say its not the patron but a gift and focus from your patron used to send you messages and grant you power. Subtle difference but game play is the same. Ultimately your homebrewing and you know it, which means you can do as you wish. All I really want people to know it that per the rules their is nothing about hexblades that grant them a free artifact weapon. Making a scaling weapon is a cool homebrew but as homebrew it has nothing to do with the rule. Just like I have noticed a lot of player thinking hexblades pact of the blade have to use a sword, but I made one with improved pact weapon that changes his back and forth between a whip and a crossbow as a action... which is within the rules. The pact weapon makes him proficient with it no matter the form and their is no requirement to keep a specific weapon form UNLESS you bind a physical magical weapon as your pact weapon.
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.
Yeah, totally a Homebrew weapon.
Ash doesn't really know who exactly her patron is - she only met a shadow person in her Shadowfell "voyage," who told her about the Raven Queen. And, since she found the katana - which guides her actions sometimes - she kind of has 3 options of who her patron really is. Maybe she'll find out, but random works for me for now.
And, her main criminal contact may or may not be a Shadar-kai...
It takes an action to reshape/summon a pact weapon far as I know. Where is it that you can use your bonus action? I might have missed something.