"Thirsting Blade Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact o f the Blade feature
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."
So, by RAW: If it says "instead", then otherwise (A.K.A. without that eldrich invocation) the rule would be: "You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn."
But the "original" rule is not this, you can't "attack with your pact weapon once whenever you take the attack action", actually, you can attack with your pact weapon once when you take the attack action AND choose to attack with your pact weapon. So, is incorrect what that invocation affirms that would be the rule without it?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Normally you can make 1 attack with an attack action. With Thirsting blade, you can attack twice with your pact weapon, instead of the normal once.
If you are trying to imply that the limiting of Thirsting blade to only work with your pact weapon somehow implies that you could normally attack with your pact weapon once in addition to your normal attack with the attack action, that is not how that works.
Good night! Thank you for the answer! I am just asking (RAW) if the rule is saying something that it shouldn't, if it says "instead", it means that otherwise the phrase would be: "You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn." And that would mean that you could attack (with a bow for example) and then attack with your pact weapon, once "whenever" means "any time you take the attack action on your turn".
"You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn."
This is technically correct, but it is missing the words "additional attack" or "in addition to your regular attack" that would be required to make it work the way you are thinking. As it is, it is an option to do with your full action (1 attack with pact weapon).
No. The only difference in wording between Thirsting blade and all other extra attack features is "with your pact weapon." Other than that it is limited to your pact weapon, it is identical. So anything you are trying to say about attacking with pact weapons must also apply to normal attacks as well.
You might be miss-parsing the phrasing on this rule, but that's easily done with D&D because it uses a somewhat esoteric language convention.
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The best way to restructure this phrase would be as follows
When you are taking the Attack action
And it's your turn
If you're using your pact weapon
And you're only attacking once
You may instead attack twice
This is to prevent the following 'exploits'
Attacking twice when not using your pact weapon
Attack twice when not using the Attack action
Attacking twice when it's not your turn
It also precludes attacking with a non-pact weapon and then attacking with your pact weapon because the wording specifies that you must be attacking once to instead attack twice.
No. The only difference in wording between Thirsting blade and all other extra attack features is "with your pact weapon." Other than that it is limited to your pact weapon, it is identical. So anything you are trying to say about attacking with pact weapons must also apply to normal attacks as well.
And for me, that one difference, in RAW, is enough to do a lot more than people think. Because unlike the extra attack feature (in which it doesn't matter what attack I do, I'm "consuming" one of the attacks guaranteed by the feature) this invocation, by RAW, gives you attacks (or attack) specifically with your pact weapon whenever you attack.
You might be miss-parsing the phrasing on this rule, but that's easily done with D&D because it uses a somewhat esoteric language convention.
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The best way to restructure this phrase would be as follows
When you are taking the Attack action
And it's your turn
If you're using your pact weapon
And you're only attacking once
You may instead attack twice
This is to prevent the following 'exploits'
Attacking twice when not using your pact weapon
Attack twice when not using the Attack action
Attacking twice when it's not your turn
It also precludes attacking with a non-pact weapon and then attacking with your pact weapon because the wording specifies that you must be attacking once to instead attack twice.
I hope this helps clear things up
Hello, thank you! Right, it would solve the probem, but as it is, let's consider:
1) The rule affirms that without itself the rule would be:
"You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn."
2) The rule doesn't say: "When you attack with your pact weapon on your turn" it says "whenever you take the attack action on your turn".
3) When you choose to attack, and attack with a bow (for example), you took the attack action, and therefore you trigger the invocation.
You don’t get to create rules by breaking down other rules. RAW is based on complete rules only, not partial ones where you remove certain words. The baseline rule (Separate from the invocation) is
The Attack Action
“With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.”
The invocation grants an exception (you can attack twice) and one requirement (the weapon you are attacking with must be your pact weapon). the baseline rule still applies
Again, you don’t get to create/define a rule by breaking down another rule
I think you might be attempting to infer a rule when one does not exist.
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn
Your implication is that this rule infers when you take the attack action, you may attack once with your pact weapon regardless of what weapon you're attacking with based on an interpretation of the structure of the sentence.
Let's set aside the fact that there is no rule that says "You can attack once with your pact weapon whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"
The rules for the Attack action are
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
It's important to note that it says one melee or ranged attack. This means that unless a specific rule says otherwise, that general rule always holds true.
So we have a general rule that says you can attack once per attack action, and a specific rule that says you can attack twice instead of once. There is no intervening rule between those that says a warlock can attack twice and that the second rule actually means you can attack three times. The rules do what they say they do, nothing more, nothing less.
I think you might be attempting to infer a rule when one does not exist.
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn
Your implication is that this rule infers when you take the attack action, you may attack once with your pact weapon regardless of what weapon you're attacking with based on an interpretation of the structure of the sentence.
Let's set aside the fact that there is no rule that says "You can attack once with your pact weapon whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"
The rules for the Attack action are
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
It's important to note that it says one melee or ranged attack. This means that unless a specific rule says otherwise, that general rule always holds true.
So we have a general rule that says you can attack once per attack action, and a specific rule that says you can attack twice instead of once. There is no intervening rule between those that says a warlock can attack twice and that the second rule actually means you can attack three times. The rules do what they say they do, nothing more, nothing less.
"Let's set aside the fact that there is no rule that says "You can attack once with your pact weapon whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"" That's exactly my point, there is no such rule, but the Eldritch invocation in question affirms that there is such rule. And thats why I think it is "wrong".
but the Eldritch invocation in question affirms that there is such rule
It doesn't unless you read the sentence in one particular way, ignoring other rules of the game.
Secondly, it's important to note that rules do not exist in D&D by affirmation or implication, they exist by being stated. The rules state you get one attack per attack action. If no other rule contravenes or modifies that rule, that rule holds true. The invocation says you attack twice instead of once with your pact weapon when you take the attack action on your turn, meaning just that and only that.
I think you might be attempting to infer a rule when one does not exist.
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn
Your implication is that this rule infers when you take the attack action, you may attack once with your pact weapon regardless of what weapon you're attacking with based on an interpretation of the structure of the sentence.
Let's set aside the fact that there is no rule that says "You can attack once with your pact weapon whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"
The rules for the Attack action are
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
It's important to note that it says one melee or ranged attack. This means that unless a specific rule says otherwise, that general rule always holds true.
So we have a general rule that says you can attack once per attack action, and a specific rule that says you can attack twice instead of once. There is no intervening rule between those that says a warlock can attack twice and that the second rule actually means you can attack three times. The rules do what they say they do, nothing more, nothing less.
"Let's set aside the fact that there is no rule that says "You can attack once with your pact weapon whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"" That's exactly my point, there is no such rule, but the Eldritch invocation in question affirms that there is such rule. And thats why I think it is "wrong".
There IS such a rule. The general rule on the attack action (as quoted above) states:
"The Attack Action
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.”
When you attack using the Attack action you make ONE melee or ranged attack. Using a pact weapon or any other weapon does NOT change that general rule. You get ONE attack with your pact weapon (or any other weapon) when you take the attack action.
All thirsting blade does is that IF you take the attack action AND you decide to attack with your pact weapon then INSTEAD of the one attack allowed by the general rules you are allowed to make two attacks with your pact weapon.
That is all it is saying. Normally, under the general rules governing the attack action, you would only be allowed ONE attack of any kind, pact weapon or not. Thirsting blade grants a specific exception to the general rule just for the pact weapon, allowing the warlock to make two attacks instead of just one.
1) The rule affirms that without itself the rule would be:
"You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn."
2) The rule doesn't say: "When you attack with your pact weapon on your turn" it says "whenever you take the attack action on your turn".
3) When you choose to attack, and attack with a bow (for example), you took the attack action, and therefore you trigger the invocation.
As Icon and Davyd already said, rules have to be stated to exist, not implied. And I've already said that this is indeed an option: you can attack with your pact weapon, OR you can attack with a different weapon. But no attacks are granted in addition to the normal one, so you still only get 1 (or 2 with thirsting blade).
If it had been worded that way, it wouldn't be limited by the attack action and would be abusable (like using pole arm master or crossbow expert to get 2 bonus action attacks, or getting 2 attacks with booming/green-flame blade). As it is currently worded, when you take the attack action, you can make 2 attacks with your pact weapon, that is what is intended.
When you take the attack action, you trigger the invocation. When you attack with a weapon other than your pact weapon, you have ignored the trigger. The invocation replaces the normal attack completely. If it had been meant to be used "in addition" it would have said "in addition" as other features do.
"Let's set aside the fact that there is no rule that says "You can attack once with your pact weapon whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"" That's exactly my point, there is no such rule, but the Eldritch invocation in question affirms that there is such rule. And thats why I think it is "wrong".
I'm not sure why you're using "by RAW" reasoning when By RAW means using things exactly as they are written, not making up different rules, talking about RAI (Rules as intended) or hidden implications of rules. It means they are written a specific way.
Thirsting Blade
Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact of the Blade feature
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
You talk specifically about the wording for attacking twice, instead of once, whenever you take the attack action on your turn. I understand your reasoning a bit, however it's not by RAW since the RAW is clear in this case.
When you say:
1) The rule affirms that without itself the rule would be:
"You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn."
You have already left "by RAW" since you're not using a full Rules as Written. It's not written like this, for a reason.. Let's look at some RAW. What is a pact weapon?
Pact of the Blade
You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand. You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see the Weapons section for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage. (To save space I removed the rest, which is basically "perform ritual, you can do it on magic weapons and some other non-relevant writings).
This specifically says what a pact weapon is: a 'Melee weapon'. It does have a few properties that differ from a normal weapon, like how it counts as magical for some purposes, but besides that the only thing "special" about it is that you count as proficient while using it. This means it follows the normal rules for weapons (melee to be specific). Since it follows these rules, we can be sure that it's not a specific attack option, it's just a weapon.
If we go back and look at the specific invocation we see that it follows the same pattern as other Extra attack options, with an extra added part of when you get to do it (when you use the pact weapon). It mentions "twice, instead of once" to prevent abuse like stacking Extra attacks from different sources.
So, since pact weapons are just a specific type of melee weapons in this case, which you have to use to get the effect, it's just a more limited version of the regular "Extra attack" options many have.
I understand your reasoning but it's based around an idea that the pact weapon is a specific type of attack, when it's really just a weapon and follows normal rules, which limits its options.
This is way over my head, but, I have a question that may have been answered above.
If you are at level 10 have 2 attacks and you have a pact weapon does that mean you get 4 attacks? I assume no, because that sounds too overpowered, but I wanted to understand the answer.
This is way over my head, but, I have a question that may have been answered above.
If you are at level 10 have 2 attacks and you have a pact weapon does that mean you get 4 attacks? I assume no, because that sounds too overpowered, but I wanted to understand the answer.
You'll have to be more specific. What is giving you two attacks at level 10?
In the more general sense, I can feel safe in saying, "No, you don't get 4 attacks.". My guess is, you are multiclassing and your other class is also giving an "Extra Attack" feature. In the section on multiclass it states:
If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock's eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn't give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack.
This is way over my head, but, I have a question that may have been answered above.
If you are at level 10 have 2 attacks and you have a pact weapon does that mean you get 4 attacks? I assume no, because that sounds too overpowered, but I wanted to understand the answer.
You'll have to be more specific. What is giving you two attacks at level 10?
In the more general sense, I can feel safe in saying, "No, you don't get 4 attacks.". My guess is, you are multiclassing and your other class is also giving an "Extra Attack" feature. In the section on multiclass it states:
If you gain the Extra Attack class feature from more than one class, the features don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks with this feature unless it says you do (as the fighter's version of Extra Attack does). Similarly, the warlock's eldritch invocation Thirsting Blade doesn't give you additional attacks if you also have Extra Attack.
Yes, sorry I didn't mention that I am a hexblade paladin. But I'm guessing you have proven what I couldn't find.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
By RAW:
"Thirsting Blade
Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact o f the Blade feature
You can attack with your pact weapon twice, instead of
once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."
So, by RAW: If it says "instead", then otherwise (A.K.A. without that eldrich invocation) the rule would be: "You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn."
But the "original" rule is not this, you can't "attack with your pact weapon once whenever you take the attack action", actually, you can attack with your pact weapon once when you take the attack action AND choose to attack with your pact weapon. So, is incorrect what that invocation affirms that would be the rule without it?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Normally you can make 1 attack with an attack action. With Thirsting blade, you can attack twice with your pact weapon, instead of the normal once.
If you are trying to imply that the limiting of Thirsting blade to only work with your pact weapon somehow implies that you could normally attack with your pact weapon once in addition to your normal attack with the attack action, that is not how that works.
Good night! Thank you for the answer! I am just asking (RAW) if the rule is saying something that it shouldn't, if it says "instead", it means that otherwise the phrase would be: "You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn." And that would mean that you could attack (with a bow for example) and then attack with your pact weapon, once "whenever" means "any time you take the attack action on your turn".
This is technically correct, but it is missing the words "additional attack" or "in addition to your regular attack" that would be required to make it work the way you are thinking. As it is, it is an option to do with your full action (1 attack with pact weapon).
But as it is written, it says so. Doesn't it?
No. The only difference in wording between Thirsting blade and all other extra attack features is "with your pact weapon." Other than that it is limited to your pact weapon, it is identical. So anything you are trying to say about attacking with pact weapons must also apply to normal attacks as well.
You might be miss-parsing the phrasing on this rule, but that's easily done with D&D because it uses a somewhat esoteric language convention.
The best way to restructure this phrase would be as follows
This is to prevent the following 'exploits'
It also precludes attacking with a non-pact weapon and then attacking with your pact weapon because the wording specifies that you must be attacking once to instead attack twice.
I hope this helps clear things up
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
And for me, that one difference, in RAW, is enough to do a lot more than people think. Because unlike the extra attack feature (in which it doesn't matter what attack I do, I'm "consuming" one of the attacks guaranteed by the feature) this invocation, by RAW, gives you attacks (or attack) specifically with your pact weapon whenever you attack.
Hello, thank you! Right, it would solve the probem, but as it is, let's consider:
1) The rule affirms that without itself the rule would be:
"You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn."
2) The rule doesn't say: "When you attack with your pact weapon on your turn" it says "whenever you take the attack action on your turn".
3) When you choose to attack, and attack with a bow (for example), you took the attack action, and therefore you trigger the invocation.
You don’t get to create rules by breaking down other rules. RAW is based on complete rules only, not partial ones where you remove certain words. The baseline rule (Separate from the invocation) is
The Attack Action
“With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.”
The invocation grants an exception (you can attack twice) and one requirement (the weapon you are attacking with must be your pact weapon). the baseline rule still applies
Again, you don’t get to create/define a rule by breaking down another rule
I think you might be attempting to infer a rule when one does not exist.
Your implication is that this rule infers when you take the attack action, you may attack once with your pact weapon regardless of what weapon you're attacking with based on an interpretation of the structure of the sentence.
Let's set aside the fact that there is no rule that says "You can attack once with your pact weapon whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"
The rules for the Attack action are
It's important to note that it says one melee or ranged attack. This means that unless a specific rule says otherwise, that general rule always holds true.
So we have a general rule that says you can attack once per attack action, and a specific rule that says you can attack twice instead of once. There is no intervening rule between those that says a warlock can attack twice and that the second rule actually means you can attack three times. The rules do what they say they do, nothing more, nothing less.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
"Let's set aside the fact that there is no rule that says "You can attack once with your pact weapon whenever you take the Attack action on your turn"" That's exactly my point, there is no such rule, but the Eldritch invocation in question affirms that there is such rule. And thats why I think it is "wrong".
It doesn't unless you read the sentence in one particular way, ignoring other rules of the game.
Secondly, it's important to note that rules do not exist in D&D by affirmation or implication, they exist by being stated. The rules state you get one attack per attack action. If no other rule contravenes or modifies that rule, that rule holds true. The invocation says you attack twice instead of once with your pact weapon when you take the attack action on your turn, meaning just that and only that.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
There IS such a rule. The general rule on the attack action (as quoted above) states:
"The Attack Action
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.”
When you attack using the Attack action you make ONE melee or ranged attack. Using a pact weapon or any other weapon does NOT change that general rule. You get ONE attack with your pact weapon (or any other weapon) when you take the attack action.
All thirsting blade does is that IF you take the attack action AND you decide to attack with your pact weapon then INSTEAD of the one attack allowed by the general rules you are allowed to make two attacks with your pact weapon.
That is all it is saying. Normally, under the general rules governing the attack action, you would only be allowed ONE attack of any kind, pact weapon or not. Thirsting blade grants a specific exception to the general rule just for the pact weapon, allowing the warlock to make two attacks instead of just one.
I'm not sure why you're using "by RAW" reasoning when By RAW means using things exactly as they are written, not making up different rules, talking about RAI (Rules as intended) or hidden implications of rules. It means they are written a specific way.
You talk specifically about the wording for attacking twice, instead of once, whenever you take the attack action on your turn. I understand your reasoning a bit, however it's not by RAW since the RAW is clear in this case.
When you say:
1) The rule affirms that without itself the rule would be:
"You can attack with your pact weapon once WHENEVER you take the Attack action on your turn."
You have already left "by RAW" since you're not using a full Rules as Written. It's not written like this, for a reason.. Let's look at some RAW. What is a pact weapon?
This specifically says what a pact weapon is: a 'Melee weapon'. It does have a few properties that differ from a normal weapon, like how it counts as magical for some purposes, but besides that the only thing "special" about it is that you count as proficient while using it. This means it follows the normal rules for weapons (melee to be specific). Since it follows these rules, we can be sure that it's not a specific attack option, it's just a weapon.
If we go back and look at the specific invocation we see that it follows the same pattern as other Extra attack options, with an extra added part of when you get to do it (when you use the pact weapon). It mentions "twice, instead of once" to prevent abuse like stacking Extra attacks from different sources.
So, since pact weapons are just a specific type of melee weapons in this case, which you have to use to get the effect, it's just a more limited version of the regular "Extra attack" options many have.
I understand your reasoning but it's based around an idea that the pact weapon is a specific type of attack, when it's really just a weapon and follows normal rules, which limits its options.
This is way over my head, but, I have a question that may have been answered above.
If you are at level 10 have 2 attacks and you have a pact weapon does that mean you get 4 attacks? I assume no, because that sounds too overpowered, but I wanted to understand the answer.
You'll have to be more specific. What is giving you two attacks at level 10?
In the more general sense, I can feel safe in saying, "No, you don't get 4 attacks.". My guess is, you are multiclassing and your other class is also giving an "Extra Attack" feature. In the section on multiclass it states:
Yes, sorry I didn't mention that I am a hexblade paladin. But I'm guessing you have proven what I couldn't find.