D&D 5E 5e PHB Warlock Pact Blade Rules aren’t Clearly Stated - What is Your Interpretation

[Fire Brand]

5e PHB Warlock Pact Blade Rules aren’t Clearly Stated - What is Your Interpretation

Greetings - First post

The rules that aren’t clear – or words that need emphasis – I typed in caps (not yelling ). Because honestly you can read a rule three times and gloss over a word assuming you now what it means. Except for 4e it seems like D&D has a history of poor rules wording, imho – hence rules lawyers. I own the Holmes Basic Set, crayon dice, Gygax DM and PHB to prove it! I admittedly haven’t played much lately but did the Playtest. I’d like to hear your interpretation of rules – which are supposed to be easy to understand in this edition. This proves how unclear some 5e rules can be. I emailed WotC for clarification but they haven’t replied yet. Maybe because it’s been pre-released to FLGS (is how I’ve seen this having perused the Warlock section) being excited about a Pact Blade because the concept was cool in 4e Essentials – however isn’t an implement like I hoped it would be. It’s supposedly making up for otherwise having disadvantage using Eldritch Blast in melee combat.

It’s the 3rd level Warlock Patron Pact Boon called Pact of the BLADE.

1) The rules state you can use ONE ACTION to CREATE and CHOOSE the FORM of a MELEE WEAPON. It doesn’t specify BLADE – so is it just a name? I guess so.

2) ...In your EMPTY HAND (SINGULAR)
a) I take that to mean even if you have TWO empty hands you can only wield a ONE-HANDED weapon - so you can’t use a two-handed, incl. pole arms, and so a versatile weapon can only be used one-handed. But I’ve seen people talking about two-handed weapons in Pact Blade threads so they may glossed over that.
b) Sidenote: 5e rules inexplicably don’t offer rods to Warlocks which could be one item in your other hand amongst other things. Maybe they’ll be magic items with spell charges but it sure would be nice to have one for the character flavor factor instead of relying on V,S,M.

3) The real confusing rule: It DISAPPEARS IF YOU USE THIS FEATURE AGAIN. What?
a) If you know that is going to happen then why would you even try to use the weapon again and burn an action trying to use it?
b) Therefore when CAN you use this pact weapon feature again?
c) The rules DON’T SAY WHEN (I think I am yelling there )
d) Do you get the weapon's use back after a “short” 1-hour rest ala 4e Encounter Powers – who knows?

The rules that ARE clear:
1) You’re proficient with it
2) It’s magical for overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
3) It disappears if:
a) It’s more than 5 ft away for 1 minute or more (sidenote: what really constitutes a minute is another one that’s unclear – combat rounds are 6 sec. but really how are players and DM’s going to handle time)
b) you dismiss it as an action
c) you die (0 HP is still alive – so you’re laying there gripping it in your cold almost-dead hands lol)
4) You can TRANSFORM one MAGICAL weapon (I glossed over that hence caps)
a) by performing a 1hr ritual holding it the entire time
b) you can then dismiss it to extradimensional space (cool)
c) so it appears when you CREATE your pact weapon thereafter (go back to start ‘1’)

Get out your Pact Blades, consult your Fiendish Patron, and Interpret away!

 

[Stormonu]

I don't have the book yet, but I take #3 is so that you could resummon the pact blade and perhaps change it to a different weapon - say once a knife, another time a club, etc. Also, it keeps you from dual wielding pact blades.

 

[Mouseferatu]

1) The rules state you can use ONE ACTION to CREATE and CHOOSE the FORM of a MELEE WEAPON. It doesn’t specify BLADE – so is it just a name? I guess so.

Yep. Any melee weapon. Not all eldritch knights are actually knights, either.

2) ...In your EMPTY HAND (SINGULAR)
a) I take that to mean even if you have TWO empty hands you can only wield a ONE-HANDED weapon - so you can’t use a two-handed, incl. pole arms, and so a versatile weapon can only be used one-handed. But I’ve seen people talking about two-handed weapons in Pact Blade threads so they may glossed over that.

You can't wield a two-handed weapon, but you can hold it one. So there's no reason a pact blade couldn't be a two-hander.

[quot]3) The real confusing rule: It DISAPPEARS IF YOU USE THIS FEATURE AGAIN. What?
a) If you know that is going to happen then why would you even try to use the weapon again and burn an action trying to use it?
b) Therefore when CAN you use this pact weapon feature again?
c) The rules DON’T SAY WHEN (I think I am yelling there )
d) Do you get the weapon's use back after a “short” 1-hour rest ala 4e Encounter Powers – who knows? [/quote]

There's no "getting the use back." You always have it.

You might use the power again if you've been disarmed. Or if you had to leave your weapon with a guard. Or just chosen to dismiss it, rather than have it sitting around. And the phrase being there makes it clear that you can't summon two for two-weapon fighting.

You're overcomplicating things.

 

[Fire Brand]

I don't have the book yet, but I take #3 is so that you could resummon the pact blade and perhaps change it to a different weapon - say once a knife, another time a club, etc. Also, it keeps you from dual wielding pact blades.

"You make an interesting point." - Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction

That's where I think they could have said "any one-handed melee weapon in ONE empty hand. Note you cannot duel-wield etc. and can summon a different melee weapon on any future combat round." or something like that so there'd be no doubt there.

They make it sound like you only get to use it once per round then poof it's gone. They can leave me hanging with some of there wording.

Thanks for your input!

 

[xorpalm]

pact-blade spear

The PHB actually gives an example of an ancient spear with one eye for a great one pact blade, which at least is versatile and can be used two handed. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be a halberd, etc. Along those lines, I'd expect to be able to use somatics for spell casting with a two handed pole arm... the whole wizard staff argument etc...

 

[Andor]

I haven't read the PHB yet so I'm only going from what yo wrote but it seems clear enough.

The ability lets you summon a weapon. *poof* You have a weapon.
Using the weapon is not employing the ability, so I don't see why the weapon would revert to vaporware.

If it's far from you for 1 min, or you summon another weapon the first weapon disappears.

So. Summon a sword and you can whack someone with it all day.

Summon a spear and chuck it at someone and you can summon another one to replace it and, as an added bonus stop the foe from throwing it back at you.

Summon a dagger and wedge under a door to hold off the hobgolbins and it's only going to let you leg it for 1 min before the doorstop *poofs* away.

Best use of a pact blade? Hock it for beer. Just make sure you stagger far enough to avoid the angry barkeep within 1 min of leaving the premesis.

 

[TwoSix]

They make it sound like you only get to use it once per round then poof it's gone. They can leave me hanging with some of there wording.

I'll be honest; if you're the type that likes their rules clear-cut with the exceptions spelled out, 5e may not be the best system for ya. Its strength is spelling out the majority of situations with fairly terse rules, covering all the corner cases is not something it particularly concerns itself with.

 

[Li Shenron]

1) The rules state you can use ONE ACTION to CREATE and CHOOSE the FORM of a MELEE WEAPON. It doesn’t specify BLADE – so is it just a name?

2) ...In your EMPTY HAND (SINGULAR)
a) I take that to mean even if you have TWO empty hands you can only wield a ONE-HANDED weapon - so you can’t use a two-handed, incl. pole arms, and so a versatile weapon can only be used one-handed. But I’ve seen people talking about two-handed weapons in Pact Blade threads so they may glossed over that.

3) The real confusing rule: It DISAPPEARS IF YOU USE THIS FEATURE AGAIN. What?

Just speaking casually here because I don't have the PHB. Anyway this is what I suspect is works like:

1) Any melee weapon would do. Probably even a frying pan.

2) My guess is that is part of a longer sentence such as "the blade appears in your empty hand"? I don't think this means it has to be a one-handed weapon. But it has to be a melee weapon apparently. I wonder what happens if you decide to throw it.

3) I think it simply means you can't have more than one pact weapon, and if you summon another, the previous one disappears.

 

[pemerton]

It seems that (3) might have been better worded along the lines of "If you use this feature again, you can summon a new pact weapon but any existing pact weapon that you have summoned disappears".

 

[Fire Brand]

Thanks for your insight! I'm having trouble quoting this so Ill try it this way for now just to finish your thought

<quote>Yep. Any melee weapon. Not all eldritch knights are actually knights, either.</quote>

Then why oh why do they use such terms? lol A: Flavor. Pact Weapon might be better but not as “sexy”.

[Sidenote: It seems like the Warlockhas a lot of the Names of spells that came over with it from 4e. I like that. (although I ignored 2e and 3.5e so I don’t know if any of them came from those editions) such as Eldritch Blast, Hellish Rebuke, Hunger of Hadar, Vampiric Touch etc.]

<quote>There's no "getting the use back." You always have it.</quote>

<quote>You might use the power again if you've been disarmed. Or if you had to leave your weapon with a guard. Or just chosen to dismiss it, rather than have it sitting around. And the phrase being there makes it clear that you can't summon two for two-weapon fighting.

<quote>You're overcomplicating things.</quote>

ohhh I'm good at that : A mind flayer would reject my brain. If it were real combat I'd be at 1hp still wondering out loud if what happened is what was supposed to happen. Well look down at the scroll . What does it say. Well it's what it doesn't say. Too bad. You're dead : That's why I liked 4e. They spelled it out. Essentially though 5e is touted as easy to understand when in fact they word things poorly or don't finish their thoughts as though the people who wrote it know what they mean but there's questions to the reader in some cases. I guess when they also say it harkens back to previous editions they also mean rules like that lol

I'll quote the important parts verbatim pp107-108: "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" [...] "Your pact weapon disappears if it is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more. It also disappears if you use this feature again, if you dismiss the weapon (no action required), or if you die."

It's their wording of: "It also disappears if you use this feature again" that leaves me hanging for better wording because it sounds like if you try to take another swing then poof it's gone because you are trying to "use this feature again" I assumed with the same weapon.

If they flat out said it the way you two have interpreted it and the different scenarios in brief it would be clear. Now honestly I didn't think you could dual wield.

<quote>You can’t wield a two-handed weapon, but you can hold it one. So there’s no reason a pact blade couldn’t be a two-hander.</quote>

So you're saying even though the weapons table says you have to use it two-handed to attack, you can still hold one (I'd think some would be too heavy for a puny Warlock : ) you could still hope to pierce an opponent if they run into a polearm balanced on end on the ground under your armpit at an angle ala Prince Oberon in Game of Thrones (well before got cocky and had his head squashed like a watermelon : )

I was also (put on over-thinking helm) in terms of do they consider this a like a spell slot or 4e encounter power as temporary in melee trying to save-your-bacon because a Warlock is primarily ranged and ranged spells roll at disadvantage in melee situations. ie. is that the bottom line purpose. It sounds like everyone's interpretation is that it's an 'At-Will' melee boon to complement an 'At-Will' ranged cantrip Eldritch Blast. That makes sense.