Even bags of holding I'd say are possible. How far away it is is in the DM judgment call range, the opening of the bag of holding being within 5 feet or whatever might be considered for the item to be within that distance.
As soon as it clears the entrance, it's on another plane. I don't think it would break anything to rule otherwise and you could potentially circumvent it if you had a fob or something extending out of the extradimensional space or occasionally stuck a hand in.
On the other hand, since it is on another plane, any effect that would detect the pact weapon and not the bag of holding or similar item would not detect the weapon on another plane. There was a Detect Weaponry spell in 3e and could return in a later book or as magic item; it could be an interesting addition for Eberron as a Mark of Warding or Mark of Detection ability. If you rule that it is still within 5 feet of you, you should also rule that such an effect detects the weapon.
Are you also aware of the difference in fighting styles when using a gladius as opposed to using a rapier with perhaps a main gauche?
I missed this gem.
Are you also aware of the difference in fighting styles when using a rapier/main gauche as opposed to using a gladius with perhaps a scutum?
Scutum (Roman rectangular shield) with the gladius (Roman short sword designed for deep stabbing attacks), standard armament for the Roman soldier. Are you familiar with the pilum (relatively high-tech Roman javelin designed to render an opponent's shield useless)?
Renaissance era rapier (designed for deep stabbing attacks) and the main gauche (left hand parrying dagger designed to catch and trap an opponent's weapon so that your rapier can slide past the opponent's defenses).
The gladius had more in common with the large American knives like the Bowie, the Ka-Bar and the original bayonet design for the M1 Garand.
One of the occasionally inane parts of D&D is that roughly 5000 years of body armor development and weapon development are usually squished down into six or seven pages of text which means that that there are weapons and body armor that are out of sync with each other. Where did I get the 5000 year figure? In 3500 B.C., studded leather and the gladius was about the best that was available, while in 1300 A.D., the standard was half plate armor and a four foot long sword, and in 1500 A.D., body armor was out, in favor of the rapier and the main gauche.
Addendum: what the game calls a "short sword" is probably NOT the Roman gladius. In the Middle Ages, a noble man would have two (2) swords, a four foot 'long sword' for the battle field and a two foot 'short sword' for formal appearances at the royal court. All of the various sword types (Great Sword, Two Handed Sword, Bastard Sword, Hand and a Half Sword, Claymore, Tulwar, Saber, Khopesh and so on) are the result of a wild mixture of cultures and historical periods.
Even bags of holding I'd say are possible. How far away it is is in the DM judgment call range, the opening of the bag of holding being within 5 feet or whatever might be considered for the item to be within that distance.
As soon as it clears the entrance, it's on another plane. I don't think it would break anything to rule otherwise and you could potentially circumvent it if you had a fob or something extending out of the extradimensional space or occasionally stuck a hand in.
On the other hand, since it is on another plane, any effect that would detect the pact weapon and not the bag of holding or similar item would not detect the weapon on another plane. There was a Detect Weaponry spell in 3e and could return in a later book or as magic item; it could be an interesting addition for Eberron as a Mark of Warding or Mark of Detection ability. If you rule that it is still within 5 feet of you, you should also rule that such an effect detects the weapon.
Yeah its in another dimension, but there is a permanent door to it at your hip. It is a closed door, but it is there. How that translates to distance is a DM call. And I can see a call either way for how detect spells work with that.
That is not Concentration. If conjured weapons required Concentration, it would require a save or disappear if you take damage.
Pact of the Blade says that my warlock character forms a "mystic bond" with my conjured weapon. If I am only able to Concentrate on one magical effect at a time, how much mental effort does that "mystic bond" take?
Again, the Rules Glossary says that
When you are Unconscious,
1) You are Incapacitated,
2) You are Prone,
3) You drop whatever you are holding,
When you are Incapacitated,
your Concentration is BROKEN (No Constitution save, No save of any kind, It is BROKEN). Is "mystic bond" superior to Concentration? If so, then I would appreciate a ruling in a future Sage Advice article.
That is not Concentration. If conjured weapons required Concentration, it would require a save or disappear if you take damage.
Pact of the Blade says that my warlock character forms a "mystic bond" with my conjured weapon. If I am only able to Concentrate on one magical effect at a time, how much mental effort does that "mystic bond" take?
Again, the Rules Glossary says that
When you are Unconscious,
1) You are Incapacitated,
2) You are Prone,
3) You drop whatever you are holding,
When you are Incapacitated,
your Concentration is BROKEN (No Constitution save, No save of any kind, It is BROKEN). Is "mystic bond" superior to Concentration? If so, then I would appreciate a ruling in a future Sage Advice article.
Things only require Concentration if they say they do. Your mystic bond does not require Concentration because it does not say that it requires Concentration.
Consider that Pact of the Blade also doesn't require a material component, or a spellcasting focus, or that you be wearing a hat, or that it be Tuesday. It doesn't require any of these things for the same reason that it doesn't require Concentration.
While you're correct about the Incapacitated condition breaking Concentration immediately without a saving throw, that's irrelevant to this discussion because Pact of the Blade doesn't require Concentration.
That is not Concentration. If conjured weapons required Concentration, it would require a save or disappear if you take damage.
Pact of the Blade says that my warlock character forms a "mystic bond" with my conjured weapon. If I am only able to Concentrate on one magical effect at a time, how much mental effort does that "mystic bond" take?
Again, the Rules Glossary says that
When you are Unconscious,
1) You are Incapacitated,
2) You are Prone,
3) You drop whatever you are holding,
When you are Incapacitated,
your Concentration is BROKEN (No Constitution save, No save of any kind, It is BROKEN). Is "mystic bond" superior to Concentration? If so, then I would appreciate a ruling in a future Sage Advice article.
Things only require Concentration if they say they do. Your mystic bond does not require Concentration because it does not say that it requires Concentration.
Consider that Pact of the Blade also doesn't require a material component, or a spellcasting focus, or that you be wearing a hat, or that it be Tuesday. It doesn't require any of these things for the same reason that it doesn't require Concentration.
While you're correct about the Incapacitated condition breaking Concentration immediately without a saving throw, that's irrelevant to this discussion because Pact of the Blade doesn't require Concentration.
I mean its the rules, just read the rules on pact of the blade, no concentration mentioned, read concentration and then note how it says concentration will be specified in the effects description which its not with pact of the blade, look at spells that have concertation and note it is there. The rule lets you know the spell or effect will explicitly say concentration is required. Concentration is a specific glossary entry, its not just a vague concept of the effect can be ended in various ways. Which by the way none of the pact of the blade ones other than death match concentrations ways to end, you can be incapacitated and keep pact of the blade going for example. It is only death, which is on both.
We're talking about 1 DPR, and yet people are calling the old Pact Weapon "broken"? That feels like an overreaction.
The Pact of the Blade option for the Warlock in the 2024 PHB is poorly written. It ought to be rewritten as follows,
1) If you have an enchanted weapon that is NOT attuned to some one else, you may attune to it and use it as a Spellcasting focus and as a weapon using your Proficiency Bonus, your spell casting ability modifier and the weapon's enchanted bonus.
2) You may conjure into being either a Simple or Martial Melee weapon of your choice and use it as a Spellcasting focus and as a weapon using your Proficiency Bonus and your spell casting ability modifier.
This is wholly distinct from the cantrip "Green Flame Blade" and whether that cantrip ought to be used with Pact of the Blade, should be a subject for a different thread.
1) If you have an enchanted weapon that is NOT attuned to some one else, you may attune to it and use it as a Spellcasting focus and as a weapon using your Proficiency Bonus, your spell casting ability modifier and the weapon's enchanted bonus.
2) You may conjure into being either a Simple or Martial Melee weapon of your choice and use it as a Spellcasting focus and as a weapon using your Proficiency Bonus and your spell casting ability modifier.
First, this could be interpreted as "using your Proficiency Bonus, your spell casting ability modifier and the weapon's enchanted bonus" as applying to using "it as a Spellcasting focus and as a weapon". Keeping two functions as separate sentences is clearer. Note that weapons just have bonuses in 5e; enchantment bonuses were from 3.x where bonuses of the same type would not stack.
Second, the way you worded the attack bonus creates a replacement effect. I don't think this has an impact here in scenario 1, but in scenario 2, if someone casts Magic Weapon on the Pact Weapon, it could be interpreted as not affecting the attack roll because the rule replaces the normal formula for calculating the attack bonus. Additionally, this forces you to use your Charisma when attacking with your Pact Weapon which is fine most of the time, but if for some reason your Strength or Dexterity is temporarily or permanently higher than your Charisma (due to a Magic Item, curse, or poison), your version prevents you from switching attributes. The existing rule allows you to use your Charisma instead of Dexterity or Strength when attacking with your Pact Weapon. It's simple, clear, and uses the standard attack roll formula.
Finally, you left off the ability to change the damage type, which is a powerful ability, and the rules regarding ending the bond. In your version, can you only bond with one ever? Can you bond with more than one?
I don't think it is poorly written in that I think what it does is pretty clear. I think it is poorly designed. They are so hung up on its name being pact of the blade they force in a narrow melee weapon build with a magic weapon workaround which means its not a balance rule really its just they are hung up on its name, unless you go deep into it eldritch blast is still a better ranged option.(honestly I'd of ditched eldritch blast, made pact of the blade a default power with ranged attacks, and folded eldritch blast invocations into it, probably wouldn't have made it actual weapons but more of a one handed pact does X, 2 handed Y it can look like whatever you want as long as it is Z size or smaller)
The green flame blade bit, i think it works as part of a weapon stat block is cost so i think raw it works. I think RAI it works as well as all their costly component was about was using a focus and casting the spell without a weapon. A fix for something that didn't need a fix, as again they are hung up on the name, who cares if you cast it without a weapon. It is weaker that way. There are a lot of parts in 5e where they have a narrow thematic that they insist you bend to, rogues and the weapons usable with sneak attacks for example. And it is almost never something that really makes the game feel more like D&D or something, just more of a you are playing it wrong vibes with no real logic behind it.
I don't think it is poorly written in that I think what it does is pretty clear. I think it is poorly designed. They are so hung up on its name being pact of the blade they force in a narrow melee weapon build with a magic weapon workaround which means its not a balance rule really its just they are hung up on its name
I don't think the Magic Weapon workaround is intentional. I think it's an oversight. If I am correct, I also think that it is unlikely to be corrected. I agree that the melee restriction is unnecessary, but I would go so far as to replace the Eldritch Blast line. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" is metaphorical reference for violence and Pact of the Blade should be as well (a metaphor for weapons in general; I'm not advocating for a Pact of the Murder Hobo). Just remove the melee restriction from Pact of the Blade and I don't see any balance issues. Certain follow up Invocations, such as Eldritch Smite could be restricted to melee (similar to Divine Smite).
I don't think it is poorly written in that I think what it does is pretty clear. I think it is poorly designed. They are so hung up on its name being pact of the blade they force in a narrow melee weapon build with a magic weapon workaround which means its not a balance rule really its just they are hung up on its name
I don't think the Magic Weapon workaround is intentional. I think it's an oversight. If I am correct, I also think that it is unlikely to be corrected. I agree that the melee restriction is unnecessary, but I would go so far as to replace the Eldritch Blast line. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" is metaphorical reference for violence and Pact of the Blade should be as well (a metaphor for weapons in general; I'm not advocating for a Pact of the Murder Hobo). Just remove the melee restriction from Pact of the Blade and I don't see any balance issues. Certain follow up Invocations, such as Eldritch Smite could be restricted to melee (similar to Divine Smite).
could be an oversight, though I think i remember a video where they phrased it in a way that it sounded intentional. though it could have been just rolling with the oversight when they discovered it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As soon as it clears the entrance, it's on another plane. I don't think it would break anything to rule otherwise and you could potentially circumvent it if you had a fob or something extending out of the extradimensional space or occasionally stuck a hand in.
On the other hand, since it is on another plane, any effect that would detect the pact weapon and not the bag of holding or similar item would not detect the weapon on another plane. There was a Detect Weaponry spell in 3e and could return in a later book or as magic item; it could be an interesting addition for Eberron as a Mark of Warding or Mark of Detection ability. If you rule that it is still within 5 feet of you, you should also rule that such an effect detects the weapon.
How to add Tooltips.
Scutum (Roman rectangular shield) with the gladius (Roman short sword designed for deep stabbing attacks), standard armament for the Roman soldier. Are you familiar with the pilum (relatively high-tech Roman javelin designed to render an opponent's shield useless)?
Renaissance era rapier (designed for deep stabbing attacks) and the main gauche (left hand parrying dagger designed to catch and trap an opponent's weapon so that your rapier can slide past the opponent's defenses).
The gladius had more in common with the large American knives like the Bowie, the Ka-Bar and the original bayonet design for the M1 Garand.
One of the occasionally inane parts of D&D is that roughly 5000 years of body armor development and weapon development are usually squished down into six or seven pages of text which means that that there are weapons and body armor that are out of sync with each other. Where did I get the 5000 year figure? In 3500 B.C., studded leather and the gladius was about the best that was available, while in 1300 A.D., the standard was half plate armor and a four foot long sword, and in 1500 A.D., body armor was out, in favor of the rapier and the main gauche.
Addendum: what the game calls a "short sword" is probably NOT the Roman gladius. In the Middle Ages, a noble man would have two (2) swords, a four foot 'long sword' for the battle field and a two foot 'short sword' for formal appearances at the royal court. All of the various sword types (Great Sword, Two Handed Sword, Bastard Sword, Hand and a Half Sword, Claymore, Tulwar, Saber, Khopesh and so on) are the result of a wild mixture of cultures and historical periods.
Yeah its in another dimension, but there is a permanent door to it at your hip. It is a closed door, but it is there. How that translates to distance is a DM call. And I can see a call either way for how detect spells work with that.
Pact of the Blade says that my warlock character forms a "mystic bond" with my conjured weapon. If I am only able to Concentrate on one magical effect at a time, how much mental effort does that "mystic bond" take?
Again, the Rules Glossary says that
When you are Unconscious,
1) You are Incapacitated,
2) You are Prone,
3) You drop whatever you are holding,
When you are Incapacitated,
your Concentration is BROKEN (No Constitution save, No save of any kind, It is BROKEN). Is "mystic bond" superior to Concentration? If so, then I would appreciate a ruling in a future Sage Advice article.
Things only require Concentration if they say they do. Your mystic bond does not require Concentration because it does not say that it requires Concentration.
Consider that Pact of the Blade also doesn't require a material component, or a spellcasting focus, or that you be wearing a hat, or that it be Tuesday. It doesn't require any of these things for the same reason that it doesn't require Concentration.
While you're correct about the Incapacitated condition breaking Concentration immediately without a saving throw, that's irrelevant to this discussion because Pact of the Blade doesn't require Concentration.
pronouns: he/she/they
May I quote you on this matter if my DM objects?
…sure, but it may be more effective to quote the Player’s Handbook, which is where these rules are.
pronouns: he/she/they
I mean its the rules, just read the rules on pact of the blade, no concentration mentioned, read concentration and then note how it says concentration will be specified in the effects description which its not with pact of the blade, look at spells that have concertation and note it is there. The rule lets you know the spell or effect will explicitly say concentration is required. Concentration is a specific glossary entry, its not just a vague concept of the effect can be ended in various ways. Which by the way none of the pact of the blade ones other than death match concentrations ways to end, you can be incapacitated and keep pact of the blade going for example. It is only death, which is on both.
Pact Weapons shouldn't be affected by design.
We're talking about 1 DPR, and yet people are calling the old Pact Weapon "broken"? That feels like an overreaction.
The Pact of the Blade option for the Warlock in the 2024 PHB is poorly written. It ought to be rewritten as follows,
1) If you have an enchanted weapon that is NOT attuned to some one else, you may attune to it and use it as a Spellcasting focus and as a weapon using your Proficiency Bonus, your spell casting ability modifier and the weapon's enchanted bonus.
2) You may conjure into being either a Simple or Martial Melee weapon of your choice and use it as a Spellcasting focus and as a weapon using your Proficiency Bonus and your spell casting ability modifier.
This is wholly distinct from the cantrip "Green Flame Blade" and whether that cantrip ought to be used with Pact of the Blade, should be a subject for a different thread.
I disagree that it is poorly written. Your version is shorter, but introduces additional issues and you left off the a few important rules.
I agree about Green Flame Blade.
First, this could be interpreted as "using your Proficiency Bonus, your spell casting ability modifier and the weapon's enchanted bonus" as applying to using "it as a Spellcasting focus and as a weapon". Keeping two functions as separate sentences is clearer. Note that weapons just have bonuses in 5e; enchantment bonuses were from 3.x where bonuses of the same type would not stack.
Second, the way you worded the attack bonus creates a replacement effect. I don't think this has an impact here in scenario 1, but in scenario 2, if someone casts Magic Weapon on the Pact Weapon, it could be interpreted as not affecting the attack roll because the rule replaces the normal formula for calculating the attack bonus. Additionally, this forces you to use your Charisma when attacking with your Pact Weapon which is fine most of the time, but if for some reason your Strength or Dexterity is temporarily or permanently higher than your Charisma (due to a Magic Item, curse, or poison), your version prevents you from switching attributes. The existing rule allows you to use your Charisma instead of Dexterity or Strength when attacking with your Pact Weapon. It's simple, clear, and uses the standard attack roll formula.
Finally, you left off the ability to change the damage type, which is a powerful ability, and the rules regarding ending the bond. In your version, can you only bond with one ever? Can you bond with more than one?
How to add Tooltips.
I don't think it is poorly written in that I think what it does is pretty clear. I think it is poorly designed. They are so hung up on its name being pact of the blade they force in a narrow melee weapon build with a magic weapon workaround which means its not a balance rule really its just they are hung up on its name, unless you go deep into it eldritch blast is still a better ranged option.(honestly I'd of ditched eldritch blast, made pact of the blade a default power with ranged attacks, and folded eldritch blast invocations into it, probably wouldn't have made it actual weapons but more of a one handed pact does X, 2 handed Y it can look like whatever you want as long as it is Z size or smaller)
The green flame blade bit, i think it works as part of a weapon stat block is cost so i think raw it works. I think RAI it works as well as all their costly component was about was using a focus and casting the spell without a weapon. A fix for something that didn't need a fix, as again they are hung up on the name, who cares if you cast it without a weapon. It is weaker that way. There are a lot of parts in 5e where they have a narrow thematic that they insist you bend to, rogues and the weapons usable with sneak attacks for example. And it is almost never something that really makes the game feel more like D&D or something, just more of a you are playing it wrong vibes with no real logic behind it.
I don't think the Magic Weapon workaround is intentional. I think it's an oversight. If I am correct, I also think that it is unlikely to be corrected. I agree that the melee restriction is unnecessary, but I would go so far as to replace the Eldritch Blast line. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" is metaphorical reference for violence and Pact of the Blade should be as well (a metaphor for weapons in general; I'm not advocating for a Pact of the Murder Hobo). Just remove the melee restriction from Pact of the Blade and I don't see any balance issues. Certain follow up Invocations, such as Eldritch Smite could be restricted to melee (similar to Divine Smite).
How to add Tooltips.
could be an oversight, though I think i remember a video where they phrased it in a way that it sounded intentional. though it could have been just rolling with the oversight when they discovered it.