Warlocks are proficient with any weapon they create through Pact of the Blade. Keep in mind this doesn't apply to magic items you transform into your pact weapon.
Warlocks are proficient with any weapon they create through Pact of the Blade. Keep in mind this doesn't apply to magic items you transform into your pact weapon.
A warlock is always proficient with their pact weapon, including magic weapons they've transformed into their pact weapon.
Decided to start level as Paladin 1, then went into Celestial Tomelock 3.
Can do good damage in melee, with armor & shield, can drop some nice spells and buffs, and the Protector Aasimar Paladin combo, that's a lot of healing. We don't have a cleric in the party.
Decided to start level as Paladin 1, then went into Celestial Tomelock 3.
Can do good damage in melee, with armor & shield, can drop some nice spells and buffs, and the Protector Aasimar Paladin combo, that's a lot of healing. We don't have a cleric in the party.
And Paladins start with simple and martial weapons, so Jeremy Crawford's nonsensical tweets are a moot point.
Decided to start level as Paladin 1, then went into Celestial Tomelock 3.
Can do good damage in melee, with armor & shield, can drop some nice spells and buffs, and the Protector Aasimar Paladin combo, that's a lot of healing. We don't have a cleric in the party.
And Paladins start with simple and martial weapons, so Jeremy Crawford's nonsensical tweets are a moot point.
You've got this.
And, I even made it work with her backstory. Well, I hope I will. It's not done yet.
No, Crawford does indeed make lousy calls in a lot of cases. He's very much a strict technical language type of person, but the intent of 5th edition was to rely on natural fluid language and allowing local DMs to interpret the rules in a way that fits their playstyle. Crawford's rulings don't fit a lot of playstyles, so they are "bad" for a lot of people. And there have been a few times that Crawford's calls have been errata'd. Most famously, there was the incident with the elven Trance ability. Crawford may be the main rules guy, but he's not always right. Its not easy to be the one to try and merge several different writers' perspectives and intents into a coherent whole in just a handful of seconds per question over twitter.
Suggesting that its the intent that magic item pact weapons were put in a separate paragraph for the reason that you can't gain proficiency with a bonded magical item doesn't really mesh with a casual reading pass. Especially when the ruling is coming down to arguing over the correct usage of the word "it."
So, its always good to take anything Crawford says with a grain of salt. He might be the official rules guy, but he's far from being an all knowing mind reader of the intent of the writers.
No, Crawford does indeed make lousy calls in a lot of cases. He's very much a strict technical language type of person, but the intent of 5th edition was to rely on natural fluid language and allowing local DMs to interpret the rules in a way that fits their playstyle. Crawford's rulings don't fit a lot of playstyles, so they are "bad" for a lot of people.
Jeremy's job is to help clear up what the books say, not to provide you with the most reasonable or fun rulings. He's always made it clear that 1) the rules are a tool to support the story and make the game fun and 2) DMs should do whatever feels right for their table.
And there have been a few times that Crawford's calls have been errata'd. Most famously, there was the incident with the elven Trance ability.
Yeah, because the text in the book changed, and his job is to explain what the text in the book means.
Crawford may be the main rules guy, but he's not always right.
He rarely makes mistakes, and it's not like the books themselves haven't had mistakes in them either. If your argument is "well, he's human, one of his tweets might be wrong!" you might as well throw away the books too. It's been 4 years and there's still new errata coming out for the core books.
So, its always good to take anything Crawford says with a grain of salt. He might be the official rules guy, but he's far from being an all knowing mind reader of the intent of the writers.
He's the managing editor for Dungeons and Dragons. Every single piece of writing that ends up in a D&D book passes through his hands. There's no one in a better position to explain what a piece of rules text in the book was supposed to mean, and he's the only person whose job description actually includes that.
It's fine if you want to run things differently, or if you think a piece of text was poorly written or misleading, but it's silly to insist Jeremy's tweets should be viewed with skepticism.
Jeremy's job is to help clear up what the books say, not to provide you with the most reasonable or fun rulings. He's always made it clear that 1) the rules are a tool to support the story and make the game fun and 2) DMs should do whatever feels right for their table.
Wait, are the rules supposed to be fun or not? You're taking both sides on this.
Yeah, because the text in the book changed, and his job is to explain what the text in the book means.
The text changed? After it was printed?? How in the holy living ***k did THAT happen??? Oh wait, it didn't, you're just talking nonsense here.
He rarely makes mistakes, and it's not like the books themselves haven't had mistakes in them either. If your argument is "well, he's human, one of his tweets might be wrong!" you might as well throw away the books too. It's been 4 years and there's still new errata coming out for the core books.
If the books JC edited are full of mistakes, there's no reason to believe his tweets are any better. And good reason to believe he's just flat wrong in this case. There's absolutely NOTHING in the original text to support his claim that this is RAI.
He's the managing editor for Dungeons and Dragons. Every single piece of writing that ends up in a D&D book passes through his hands. There's no one in a better position to explain what a piece of rules text in the book was supposed to mean, and he's the only person whose job description actually includes that.
It's fine if you want to run things differently, or if you think a piece of text was poorly written or misleading, but it's silly to insist Jeremy's tweets should be viewed with skepticism.
Appeals to authority don't impress me.
And no, the text wasn't poorly written or misleading. "You are proficient with [your pact weapon] while you wield it" is a general statement about pact weapons. The "specific trumps general" rule for D&D 5E is never applied anywhere; putting the rule about magical pact weapons in a separate paragraph doesn't mean the previous paragraph doesn't apply -- the English language doesn't work that way.
There is, quite simply, NOTHING in the RAW to support the notion that a Warlock isn't proficient with ANY magical weapon transformed into a pact weapon. Crawford's assertion that "this is what we actually meant" is unsupported by what the authors of D&D 5E actually wrote. If they meant it, they should have written it. They did not. He's simply fabricating this ruling out of less than whole cloth.
Why would I do anything other than point and laugh at this nonsense? He's a terrible editor and an even worse rules lawyer.
Guess it's a good thing my character started as a Fighter (changed from Paladin) for 2 levels, so is proficient with martial weapons. So, she can use her (potentially magic? patron granted?) short sword (DEX based) with no problems.
And, when she hits Warlock 3, she can perform a ritual to make that weapon her pact weapon, since it's not an artifact, or sentient...
It's fine if you want to run things differently, or if you think a piece of text was poorly written or misleading, but it's silly to insist Jeremy's tweets should be viewed with skepticism.
No, its not only completely serious, its also the baseline that the devs, including Jeremy and Mearls themselves established when 5e came out. Rulings, not rules, was a huge thing when the game came out. Casual language, not technical. This was an acknowledgement that the games all worked differently at different tables, and one set of absolute rules is meaningless.
Grain of salt and skepticism are not only not silly, but encouraged by the game designers themselves.
Jeremy's job is to help clear up what the books say, not to provide you with the most reasonable or fun rulings. He's always made it clear that 1) the rules are a tool to support the story and make the game fun and 2) DMs should do whatever feels right for their table.
Wait, are the rules supposed to be fun or not? You're taking both sides on this.
Nobody here has claimed the rules are not supposed to be fun. Don't put words in anybody's mouth.
Yeah, because the text in the book changed, and his job is to explain what the text in the book means.
The text changed? After it was printed?? How in the holy living ***k did THAT happen??? Oh wait, it didn't, you're just talking nonsense here.
I'm tempted to comment on your apparent lack of comprehension, but I recognize that's mostly because of your crappy attitude, so I'll answer directly: the text changed after printing through errata documents. Not the physical text printed on the actual books that were sold, but the textual data that comprises the actual rules.
He rarely makes mistakes, and it's not like the books themselves haven't had mistakes in them either. If your argument is "well, he's human, one of his tweets might be wrong!" you might as well throw away the books too. It's been 4 years and there's still new errata coming out for the core books.
If the books JC edited are full of mistakes, there's no reason to believe his tweets are any better. And good reason to believe he's just flat wrong in this case. There's absolutely NOTHING in the original text to support his claim that this is RAI.
If you follow this line of thinking in every situation, then you'll probably end up believing nothing from anyone, since most people (all people?) make mistakes at some point, which they then go back and correct. If you're suggesting a correction to an admitted mistake (or a clarification of a non-mistake that was either interpreted incorrectly, or vague) is not credible, because of the lack of credibility from the original mistake, then why do you think people correct their mistakes? Wouldn't it be pointless? Why are there errata documents for rulebooks? Wouldn't their very existence render them useless from lack of credibility?
And while you may think there's nothing in the text to support his claim that a rule you happen to dislike is not intentional, it is written as such. One paragraph talks about weapons you create, describing how you can both have it take a different form every time you create it, and how you're always proficient with it. Two paragraphs later, it says you can make a magic weapon your pact weapon. Are you also going to claim that since "it" in the first paragraph refers to any and all pact weapons, including magic weapons the warlock has bonded with, that you can also have that magic weapon take a new form when you summon it?
He's the managing editor for Dungeons and Dragons. Every single piece of writing that ends up in a D&D book passes through his hands. There's no one in a better position to explain what a piece of rules text in the book was supposed to mean, and he's the only person whose job description actually includes that.
It's fine if you want to run things differently, or if you think a piece of text was poorly written or misleading, but it's silly to insist Jeremy's tweets should be viewed with skepticism.
Appeals to authority don't impress me.
And no, the text wasn't poorly written or misleading. "You are proficient with [your pact weapon] while you wield it" is a general statement about pact weapons. The "specific trumps general" rule for D&D 5E is never applied anywhere; putting the rule about magical pact weapons in a separate paragraph doesn't mean the previous paragraph doesn't apply -- the English language doesn't work that way.
There is, quite simply, NOTHING in the RAW to support the notion that a Warlock isn't proficient with ANY magical weapon transformed into a pact weapon. Crawford's assertion that "this is what we actually meant" is unsupported by what the authors of D&D 5E actually wrote. If they meant it, they should have written it. They did not. He's simply fabricating this ruling out of less than whole cloth.
Why would I do anything other than point and laugh at this nonsense? He's a terrible editor and an even worse rules lawyer.
"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy when you appeal to an authority that is irrelevant to the statement in question. Jeremy Crawford is the authority when it comes to D&D 5e rules. Like it or not (and, of course, you're completely free to change anything you don't like, that's how the game goes), his word is law, when it comes to D&D 5e rules.
As to why do anything other than point and laugh at what you call nonsense? Well, two answers: a) it's not nonsense, you just don't happen to like it, and b) because it reflects incredibly poorly on you, as does your attitude in your post, btw. If you want to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to step up and pretend you're talking to actual people, and stop hiding behind the anonymity of an internet forum to vent whatever frustrations you've got going on in your head.
I would like to remind the kind community members involved in this thread to read the Site Rules and Guidelines. Specifically, I am asking to contribute to the discussion without flaming, trolling and making senseless attacks to one another.
We are currently reviewing this thread as it has posts that might break the aforementioned rules.
Actually, the new update specifically cites multiple examples of a Warlock bonding with magic weapons not on their normal proficiency list. And it says nothing about proficiency being required to wield them. (Warlock, Pact of the Blade, p5)
Why? Because per the PHB, a Warlock is always proficient with his Pact Weapon.
A question - does this work? Warlocks (other than Hexblades) can't have martial weapons. Does PotB grant that? My warlock is a Hexblade, so...
I've got a character idea (ripped from the headlines!) and I think a Protector Aasimar Celestial would fix perfectly.
I assume I could start as a Sword Bard, which might work. Doesnt really fit tge story, though. Or go fighter, but that's MAD.
Warlocks are proficient with any weapon they create through Pact of the Blade. Keep in mind this doesn't apply to magic items you transform into your pact weapon.
That was what I was thinking... Have to wait for level 3.
A warlock is always proficient with their pact weapon, including magic weapons they've transformed into their pact weapon.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
No, the text about "you are proficient with it while you wield it" is referring to pact weapons you create.
"Pact of the Blade neither requires nor grants proficiency with a magic weapon that you turn into your pact weapon."
Jeremy Crawford just loves to make lousy house rules.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
Decided to start level as Paladin 1, then went into Celestial Tomelock 3.
Can do good damage in melee, with armor & shield, can drop some nice spells and buffs, and the Protector Aasimar Paladin combo, that's a lot of healing. We don't have a cleric in the party.
And Paladins start with simple and martial weapons, so Jeremy Crawford's nonsensical tweets are a moot point.
You've got this.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
And, I even made it work with her backstory. Well, I hope I will. It's not done yet.
It's almost like the rules for magic item pact weapons were placed into their own paragraph on purpose.
No, Crawford does indeed make lousy calls in a lot of cases. He's very much a strict technical language type of person, but the intent of 5th edition was to rely on natural fluid language and allowing local DMs to interpret the rules in a way that fits their playstyle. Crawford's rulings don't fit a lot of playstyles, so they are "bad" for a lot of people. And there have been a few times that Crawford's calls have been errata'd. Most famously, there was the incident with the elven Trance ability. Crawford may be the main rules guy, but he's not always right. Its not easy to be the one to try and merge several different writers' perspectives and intents into a coherent whole in just a handful of seconds per question over twitter.
Suggesting that its the intent that magic item pact weapons were put in a separate paragraph for the reason that you can't gain proficiency with a bonded magical item doesn't really mesh with a casual reading pass. Especially when the ruling is coming down to arguing over the correct usage of the word "it."
So, its always good to take anything Crawford says with a grain of salt. He might be the official rules guy, but he's far from being an all knowing mind reader of the intent of the writers.
Jeremy's job is to help clear up what the books say, not to provide you with the most reasonable or fun rulings. He's always made it clear that 1) the rules are a tool to support the story and make the game fun and 2) DMs should do whatever feels right for their table.
Yeah, because the text in the book changed, and his job is to explain what the text in the book means.
He rarely makes mistakes, and it's not like the books themselves haven't had mistakes in them either. If your argument is "well, he's human, one of his tweets might be wrong!" you might as well throw away the books too. It's been 4 years and there's still new errata coming out for the core books.
He's the managing editor for Dungeons and Dragons. Every single piece of writing that ends up in a D&D book passes through his hands. There's no one in a better position to explain what a piece of rules text in the book was supposed to mean, and he's the only person whose job description actually includes that.
It's fine if you want to run things differently, or if you think a piece of text was poorly written or misleading, but it's silly to insist Jeremy's tweets should be viewed with skepticism.
Wait, are the rules supposed to be fun or not? You're taking both sides on this.
The text changed? After it was printed?? How in the holy living ***k did THAT happen??? Oh wait, it didn't, you're just talking nonsense here.
If the books JC edited are full of mistakes, there's no reason to believe his tweets are any better. And good reason to believe he's just flat wrong in this case. There's absolutely NOTHING in the original text to support his claim that this is RAI.
Appeals to authority don't impress me.
And no, the text wasn't poorly written or misleading. "You are proficient with [your pact weapon] while you wield it" is a general statement about pact weapons. The "specific trumps general" rule for D&D 5E is never applied anywhere; putting the rule about magical pact weapons in a separate paragraph doesn't mean the previous paragraph doesn't apply -- the English language doesn't work that way.
There is, quite simply, NOTHING in the RAW to support the notion that a Warlock isn't proficient with ANY magical weapon transformed into a pact weapon. Crawford's assertion that "this is what we actually meant" is unsupported by what the authors of D&D 5E actually wrote. If they meant it, they should have written it. They did not. He's simply fabricating this ruling out of less than whole cloth.
Why would I do anything other than point and laugh at this nonsense? He's a terrible editor and an even worse rules lawyer.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
Guess it's a good thing my character started as a Fighter (changed from Paladin) for 2 levels, so is proficient with martial weapons. So, she can use her (potentially magic? patron granted?) short sword (DEX based) with no problems.
And, when she hits Warlock 3, she can perform a ritual to make that weapon her pact weapon, since it's not an artifact, or sentient...
No, its not only completely serious, its also the baseline that the devs, including Jeremy and Mearls themselves established when 5e came out. Rulings, not rules, was a huge thing when the game came out. Casual language, not technical. This was an acknowledgement that the games all worked differently at different tables, and one set of absolute rules is meaningless.
Grain of salt and skepticism are not only not silly, but encouraged by the game designers themselves.
Nobody here has claimed the rules are not supposed to be fun. Don't put words in anybody's mouth.
I'm tempted to comment on your apparent lack of comprehension, but I recognize that's mostly because of your crappy attitude, so I'll answer directly: the text changed after printing through errata documents. Not the physical text printed on the actual books that were sold, but the textual data that comprises the actual rules.
If you follow this line of thinking in every situation, then you'll probably end up believing nothing from anyone, since most people (all people?) make mistakes at some point, which they then go back and correct. If you're suggesting a correction to an admitted mistake (or a clarification of a non-mistake that was either interpreted incorrectly, or vague) is not credible, because of the lack of credibility from the original mistake, then why do you think people correct their mistakes? Wouldn't it be pointless? Why are there errata documents for rulebooks? Wouldn't their very existence render them useless from lack of credibility?
And while you may think there's nothing in the text to support his claim that a rule you happen to dislike is not intentional, it is written as such. One paragraph talks about weapons you create, describing how you can both have it take a different form every time you create it, and how you're always proficient with it. Two paragraphs later, it says you can make a magic weapon your pact weapon. Are you also going to claim that since "it" in the first paragraph refers to any and all pact weapons, including magic weapons the warlock has bonded with, that you can also have that magic weapon take a new form when you summon it?
"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy when you appeal to an authority that is irrelevant to the statement in question. Jeremy Crawford is the authority when it comes to D&D 5e rules. Like it or not (and, of course, you're completely free to change anything you don't like, that's how the game goes), his word is law, when it comes to D&D 5e rules.
As to why do anything other than point and laugh at what you call nonsense? Well, two answers: a) it's not nonsense, you just don't happen to like it, and b) because it reflects incredibly poorly on you, as does your attitude in your post, btw. If you want to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to step up and pretend you're talking to actual people, and stop hiding behind the anonymity of an internet forum to vent whatever frustrations you've got going on in your head.
<shrug>
Tonio's wrong.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
I would like to remind the kind community members involved in this thread to read the Site Rules and Guidelines. Specifically, I am asking to contribute to the discussion without flaming, trolling and making senseless attacks to one another.
We are currently reviewing this thread as it has posts that might break the aforementioned rules.
I thank you in advance for your contribution.
New Sage Advice Compendium update is out. Guess which horrible JC tweet isn't included?
https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
Actually, the new update specifically cites multiple examples of a Warlock bonding with magic weapons not on their normal proficiency list. And it says nothing about proficiency being required to wield them. (Warlock, Pact of the Blade, p5)
Why? Because per the PHB, a Warlock is always proficient with his Pact Weapon.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
[Insert Meme Pic]
"Sage Advice is more what you call guidelines than actual rules"
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources