D&D 5E Warlock Pact Weapon and Sentient Weapons

[Kobold Stew]

I agree that the statement refers just to banishing. The rationale probably alludes to attunement (currently only defined in the 5B DM materials), which prevents an object being more than 100 feet away for more than 24 hours.

I guess time moves differently in ex-dim space!

 

[Son_of_Nyx]

I disagree tbh.

You have a paragraph about making pact weapons.

You then have a second paragraph about moving pact weapons into extra dimensional spaces. The mention of Artifact and Intelligent weapons is in this latter paragraph. So by the normal rules of grammar, you would expect it to be talking about the rules for dimensional spaces, not pact weapons in general.

I have to disagree with that statement, you have one paragraph about creating a pact weapon and another about making a magic weapon into your pact weapon, and the mention of artifact and sentient weapons is in this paragraph

 

[Dausuul]

Edit: Necromancy, already made my point on this 4 years ago.

Since then, Sage Advice has ruled that you can't make a sentient or artifact weapon into your pact weapon. Asked whether this was for flavor or balance reasons, Jeremy Crawford claimed it was "both," but did not explain how it would be overpowered (nor, for that matter, did he explain the flavor reason).

Considering this was pre-Xanathar's, when bladelocks were competing with beastmaster rangers for "least effective martial class in the game," I'm not buying that they had a compelling balance reason. At all. Even now, it's hard to see why it's just fine for a paladin to have a sentient weapon but the warlock can't.

Yet another Sage Advice ruling to toss on the trash pile.

 

[jaelis]

Edit: Necromancy, already made my point on this 4 years ago.

Since then, Sage Advice has ruled that you can't make a sentient or artifact weapon into your pact weapon. Asked whether this was for flavor or balance reasons, Jeremy Crawford claimed it was "both," but did not explain how it would be overpowered (nor, for that matter, did he explain the flavor reason).

Considering this was pre-Xanathar's, when bladelocks were competing with beastmaster rangers for "least effective martial class in the game," I'm not buying that they had a compelling balance reason. At all. Even now, it's hard to see why it's just fine for a paladin to have a sentient weapon but the warlock can't.

Yet another Sage Advice ruling to toss on the trash pile.

I agree there is no balance justification for disallowing it.

But I also support the Sage's ruling on the basis of keeping things simple. Making a intelligent/artifact weapon into a pact weapon raises all kinds of story and RP questions. If a DM is into that, then that's great and they can sort it out. But it makes sense to me to make the default rule that it doesn't work, so that no DM feels forced into dealing with those questions.

 

[Dausuul]

But I also support the Sage's ruling on the basis of keeping things simple. Making a intelligent/artifact weapon into a pact weapon raises all kinds of story and RP questions.

What questions are those? What makes a warlock's pact weapon any different from a paladin's attuned magic weapon?

 

[Son_of_Nyx]

What questions are those? What makes a warlock's pact weapon any different from a paladin's attuned magic weapon?

The attunment part, a warlock can still attune to a sentiant weapon but not make it a pact weapon

 

[Dausuul]

The attunment part, a warlock can still attune to a sentiant weapon but not make it a pact weapon

That's not a story or RP question. It's not, in fact, a question at all.

Obviously there are mechanical differences. I'm asking what is the difference in story terms that makes it a big deal if warlocks can turn sentient weapons into pact weapons. Forming a mystical bond between yourself and a magic item is normal and widespread in D&D. Why is it suddenly a huge problem when a warlock does it?

 

[jaelis]

What questions are those? What makes a warlock's pact weapon any different from a paladin's attuned magic weapon?

I guess it depends how you want to interpret it. I tend to see the pact weapon as fairly intimately tied to the warlock's patron and pact; it is supposed to be a boon from the patron after all. What if the sentient weapon doesn't approve of the patron? It has no choice or recourse but to submit to the pact binding?

(And for an artifact, actually I guess there is a mechanical aspect too, a warlock could safely hide/dispose of an arbitrarily powerful evil artifact that way.)

I guess you might say that the same questions are raised by a paladin, like if the weapon didn't agree with the paladin's ethos? But for one, a paladin using a weapon is not quite so dramatic as, basically, giving into keeping of his god. For another, there are rules for resolving conflicts like that. Sequestering it as pact weapon bypasses those rules.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd say by the letter, a warlock cannot make a sentient weapon their pact weapon.

However I would allow the sentient weapon some say in the matter. If perhaps the sentient weapon agrees to be a pact weapon, then sure.

 

[Dausuul]

I guess it depends how you want to interpret it. I tend to see the pact weapon as fairly intimately tied to the warlock's patron and pact; it is supposed to be a boon from the patron after all. What if the sentient weapon doesn't approve of the patron? It has no choice or recourse but to submit to the pact binding?

You have to spend an hour binding it, during which you must be resting and in contact with the item. If it disapproves, it's free to use whatever methods it has at its disposal to prevent you from completing the ritual. If it can't manage that... well, then, it can't. You have bound the item with your patron's magic against its will. It's mad at you. If you try to wield it, it's gonna make you pay.

I don't see why this is a problem. Conflict between sentient items and their owners is an expected part of introducing such items to the campaign.

(And for an artifact, actually I guess there is a mechanical aspect too, a warlock could safely hide/dispose of an arbitrarily powerful evil artifact that way.)

You could do much the same thing with Leomund's secret chest or a bag of holding. Each method of storage is effective, but each has a weakness. The chest is hidden on the Ethereal Plane and could be located there. The bag could be stolen. And your pact weapon can be retrieved by the simple expedient of murdering you. Making your own life the barrier between a powerful evil artifact and the world is rather heroic, but I sure wouldn't call it "safe."