D&D 5E Magic Weapon Made Pact Weapon Morphing

[Mojobacca]

I have seen several posts on various forums about the ability to call upon a magic weapon that was transformed into a warlock's pact weapon, but can't find anything official.

PHB states this about the 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 chapter 5 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.
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.
You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter. You can't affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way. The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1 hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1 hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extradimensional space when the bond breaks."

I have seen arguments stating that Magic Weapons that become Pact Weapons can only be summoned as the Magic Weapon's base form. And these arguments are supported by the section of the third paragraph that says, "You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter." And this argument can be seen as a valid one if you feel that the pronoun "it" is referencing the Magic Weapon. I, however, believe that the pronoun "it" refers to the "weapon" at the start of the sentence which could be either Magic Weapon or Pact Weapon.

There is also the first part of that same paragraph that states, "You can transform one magic weapon into your pact blade..." This, to me at least, implies that the Magic Weapon is changed into the Pact Weapon, since that is what “transform” means. It does not state that "You can bind..." or "You can substitute..." If the Magic Weapon does indeed BECOME the Pact Weapon, then the Warlock's ability to change the form of the Pact Weapon should remain intact.

I admit that my thoughts do lean towards the latter on this topic, but I'm willing to stand corrected if there is an official ruling somewhere. If there is one, where could I find it?

 

[Mirtek]

I always tended toward the former. Once you bind a specific weapon, this weapon is stored in and summoned from your pact weapon space, you can no longer request a weapon according to your current needs but always get the specific weapon you bound yourself too.

That's why a weapon would need to bring some pretty awesome extras before a warlock should consider taking it as pact weapon, losing the ability to summon a maul to bash down a door, a handaxe to chop firewood during camp time and a glaive for using your polearm master feat in combat is too good to trade for a mere +1 to hit/damage

 

[pdegan2814]

I always tended toward the former. Once you bind a specific weapon, this weapon is stored in and summoned from your pact weapon space, you can no longer request a weapon according to your current needs but always get the specific weapon you bound yourself too.

That's why a weapon would need to bring some pretty awesome extras before a warlock should consider taking it as pact weapon, losing the ability to summon a maul to bash down a door, a handaxe to chop firewood during camp time and a glaive for using your polearm master feat in combat is too good to trade for a mere +1 to hit/damage

That's my interpretation of the PHB, though I admit they could have done a better job making it more explicit. The tradeoff is gaining the use of a weapon with its own magic bonuses beyond simply being your Pact Weapon, but sacrificing the flexibility of being able to choose the form your Pact Weapon takes when you create/summon it.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

I always tended toward the former. Once you bind a specific weapon, this weapon is stored in and summoned from your pact weapon space, you can no longer request a weapon according to your current needs but always get the specific weapon you bound yourself too.

That's why a weapon would need to bring some pretty awesome extras before a warlock should consider taking it as pact weapon, losing the ability to summon a maul to bash down a door, a handaxe to chop firewood during camp time and a glaive for using your polearm master feat in combat is too good to trade for a mere +1 to hit/damage

If you're a STR BladeLock, yes. If you're a DEX BladeLock, it's pretty much rapiers, all day every day, so having +1 magic rapier for a pact blade isn't a bad thing. You weren't going to summon any other kind of weapon anyway. The only thing better than a +1 rapier is a +2 rapier, or a +1 rapier with special properties. (Dragonbane, for example.)

 

[Mirtek]

If you're a STR BladeLock, yes. If you're a DEX BladeLock, it's pretty much rapiers, all day every day, so having +1 magic rapier for a pact blade isn't a bad thing. You weren't going to summon any other kind of weapon anyway. The only thing better than a +1 rapier is a +2 rapier, or a +1 rapier with special properties. (Dragonbane, for example.)

I disagree here. A rapier doesn't skin a doe after foraging, doesn't chop firewood while camping, doesn't hammer in pitons while climbing, can't be used as 10-foot pole...

A unspecified pact weapon is the ultimate Swiss army knife. Even if you summon a rapier all the time in combat, the open end pact weapon means you never have to pack any tools for all the every day chores of adventuring life

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

I disagree here. A rapier doesn't skin a doe after foraging, doesn't chop firewood while camping, doesn't hammer in pitons while climbing, can't be used as 10-foot pole...

A unspecified pact weapon is the ultimate Swiss army knife. Even if you summon a rapier all the time in combat, the open end pact weapon means you never have to pack any tools for all the every day chores of adventuring life

<shrug> If you say so. I took the Noble background so my retainers deal with all that menial labor type stuff. My pact blade is only used for important things like vanquishing evil and impressing other nobles.
(Also, chicks dig it.)

 

[Andor]

I was about to agree that the form is fixed because the warlocks power says "You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it." and when you bind a magic weapon you summon it from an interdimensional space, you don't create it.

However I then noticed that in the paragraph about bonding a magic weapon it says again uses the word "create" instead of summoning when you call it up.

So my answer is "Whatever helps you tell a better story." I will say that if you change the weapon type of your bonded weapon, I would rule that it will also pick up the pact cues mentioned in the sidebar on page 108. Which, if you have a fiend pact, or GOO pact, and the weapon is question formerly belonged to a famous Paladin, might cause some friction with the temples when they learn you corrupted a famous relic.

 

[MarkB]

As a DM, I'd allow the bound weapon to take any desired form, within the limitations of the magic item's description.

So, if you bind an Axe +1, you can summon it in pretty much any melee weapon form - but if you bind a Sword of Wounding, you can only summon it as some form of sword.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd go the other way as DM. I rather like the idea that you can create the weapon you want out of whole cloth, but if you choose to bond an existing magic weapon, you're just calling it or dismissing it. It's a construct (shapeable) or an existing item (not). That's the tradeoff.

That's just my preference, though. I don't pretend the rules are entirely unambiguous.

 

[Ahrimon]

I'd rather go with the option of allowing a warlock that has bound a specific weapon to support that weapon or keep that one in the void and summon up a generic magic weapon. The at way they can have thier special weapon and still have the option of the flexible utility weapon. There's an opportunity cost to switching in combat and the out of combat utility is minor so I don't see an issue with it.