Hexblade, Pact of the Blade, Improved Pact Weapon and Elemental Weapon

[jgsugden]

Your logic is wrong. The entire purpose of magic weapons is to overcome resistance or immunity to non-magical damage. So if Pact of the Blade states that your weapon counts as magical for that purpose, then it is a magic weapon.

Plus, you cant convince anyone that a weapon you can summon/dismiss with magic is not a magic weapon.

Gosh, rules lawyers these days.

*Sigh*.

If they wanted it to be a magic weapon, they'd call it a magic weapon. Do remember that they recrafted the wording of these abilities carefully. It isn't something where the exact wording was not well thought out.

And as for your contention that something made with magic must be magic - Read prestidigitation. They explicitly state that you are creating something non-magical that lasts for an hour. Here, they are caeful to say that it only counts as magical for limited purposes.

People use 'rules lawyer' as a slur without really understanding what it means. It isn't someone that points to the rules, or even someone that carefully figures out what a rule means. That is just something players should do. A rules lawyer is someone that finds loopholes in the rules and twists the rules to do something unintended, like the infamous bag of rats example of 3E used to generate nearly unlimited cleaves into a target. Here, we're just reading rules as written that they - and Iam repeating myself here - they specifically wrote in this careful fashion to mean exactly what they said.

And btw, yes, I did mean to call it a slur. When you try to belittle a group of people by shoving a label on them and then treating that grouping as a 'lesser' or 'bad' group, you're using a slur. If you dislike a person's statements or actions, don't go resorting to slurs against a grouping of people. If you feel the need to judge, judge individuals.

 

[BluejayJunior]

People use 'rules lawyer' as a slur without really understanding what it means. It isn't someone that points to the rules, or even someone that carefully figures out what a rule means. That is just something players should do. A rules lawyer is someone that finds loopholes in the rules and twists the rules to do something unintended, like the infamous bag of rats example of 3E used to generate nearly unlimited cleaves into a target. Here, we're just reading rules as written that they - and Iam repeating myself here - they specifically wrote in this careful fashion to mean exactly what they said.

But you're trying to find loopholes in the rules right now. Adding the bonus to spells cast with the weapon is no where in the rules, but you are trying to read it that way and add to what is actually written. And I think it is a more logical conclusion that if something counts as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance, then it is magical. Not that it is both magical and nonmagical at the same time. Can you name something else in the game that counts as both magical and nonmagical depending on the circumstances? Or that has two opposing properties at the same time.

 

[77IM]

Not that it is both magical and nonmagical at the same time.

Those don't have to be the only two options. Is a ghost magical? Is the ethereal plane magical? Is a roc's ability to fly magical? Is a shambling mound magical? Is a troll's regeneration magical? Is the underdark magical? Is telepathy magical? None of those things could happen in the real world, but most people don't think of them as "magical," either. Although it is certainly debatable; e.g., telepathy granted by a spell is definitely magical, but telepathy granted from a GOO pact might not be, and telepathy on a Flumph probably isn't.

So, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the pact blade is some kind of weird supernatural power, but not strictly "magic." At least, it is no less reasonable than claiming a 6th-level monk is a magic weapon because her unarmed strikes count as magical. We don't have to treat every single fantastic element in D&D as "magic" in order to make the game work. You can if you want, and it certainly makes some play-styles easier, but you don't have to.

 

[Immoralkickass]

*Sigh*.

If they wanted it to be a magic weapon, they'd call it a magic weapon. Do remember that they recrafted the wording of these abilities carefully. It isn't something where the exact wording was not well thought out.

And as for your contention that something made with magic must be magic - Read prestidigitation. They explicitly state that you are creating something non-magical that lasts for an hour. Here, they are caeful to say that it only counts as magical for limited purposes.

People use 'rules lawyer' as a slur without really understanding what it means. It isn't someone that points to the rules, or even someone that carefully figures out what a rule means. That is just something players should do. A rules lawyer is someone that finds loopholes in the rules and twists the rules to do something unintended, like the infamous bag of rats example of 3E used to generate nearly unlimited cleaves into a target. Here, we're just reading rules as written that they - and Iam repeating myself here - they specifically wrote in this careful fashion to mean exactly what they said.

And btw, yes, I did mean to call it a slur. When you try to belittle a group of people by shoving a label on them and then treating that grouping as a 'lesser' or 'bad' group, you're using a slur. If you dislike a person's statements or actions, don't go resorting to slurs against a grouping of people. If you feel the need to judge, judge individuals.

Oh really? How about I try my hand at this game.


*Sigh*

If they wanted your character to be able to blink your eyes, they'd specifically write it down in the rules. Do remember that they considered that fact very carefully and purposely left it out. It isn't something where the exact wording was not well thought out.

So how about that, PCs all have that fish eye stare.

I am really curious though. How did you know they were careful in this magic weapon thingy, and not in the 3e rules which result in the bag of rats thing? So the guys who wrote 3e weren't careful? How would you know? If 5e was so perfect, JC wouldnt be bombarded by questions on Sage Advice all the time.

Also, if you realise, not many people agree with you, and that's because the Pact Weapon passed the 'duck test' as a magic weapon.

 

[jgsugden]

But you're trying to find loopholes in the rules right now.

No, the elements under discussion are not loopholes - an unintended or unintnded inadequacy in a rule that allows an unexpected favrable situation.
These elements were specifically crafted and their interaction was considered. They build the Hexblade, and edited the language of these abilities, to interact.

Adding the bonus to spells cast with the weapon is no where in the rules, but you are trying to read it that way and add to what is actually written.

That element is the remaining element where there is uncertainty. I'm not looking for loophole, I'm asking what the rules have to say to see if there is something there.

And I think it is a more logical conclusion that if something counts as magical for the purposes of overcoming resistance, then it is magical.

YOU think. However, that is not what the rules say in this instance.

Not that it is both magical and nonmagical at the same time.

It is non-magical, but counts as magical for the specified purposes. That is EXACTLY what it says. There is no interpretation to be made there.

Can you name something else in the game that counts as both magical and nonmagical depending on the circumstances?

A trinket summoned by Prestidigitation? It is non-magical EXPLICITLY in the description, but it was created by magic. Regardless, there are plenty of things that "count as magical" without being magical. Just search for that language in D&D beyond.

Or that has two opposing properties at the same time.

Define opposing properties and I would, if it were relevant. This is more of a "treated for these purposes like X, and for all other purposes like Y" which is very different than treating as opposities (this is a fire and cold spell, this heals and deals damage, etc....)

Again, loopholes are looking for unintended consequences. The, "does a weapon as implement get bonuses" is certainly closer to loophole territory, but I was asking if there were more rules/rulings I missed t see if there was something there I did not see. As it was so explicit in 4E, and they took the time to clearly explain reversal from 4E approaches elsewher in the rules, I thought there might be more that I was missing.

 

[jgsugden]

Oh really? How about I try my hand at this game.

You rolled a one.

*Sigh*

Genius start. Let's see where you went wrong.

If they wanted your character to be able to blink your eyes, they'd specifically write it down in the rules. Do remember that they considered that fact very carefully and purposely left it out. It isn't something where the exact wording was not well thought out.

Your assertion is false. We have no reason to believe they looked at eye blinking as an area of rules. However, for his area of the rules they have repeatedly talked about how they crafted these sections carefully:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/11/1...hex-warrior-feature-with-a-two-handed-weapon/

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/2...ocks-pact-of-blade-considered-a-magic-weapon/

So how about that, PCs all have that fish eye stare.

I am really curious though. How did you know they were careful in this magic weapon thingy, and not in the 3e rules which result in the bag of rats thing?

Sage Advice, and general statements made on podcasts discussing the development of the Hexblade. They've been explicit in a lot of places.

So the guys who wrote 3e weren't careful? How would you know?

Andy Collins explicitly called Bag of Rats an oversight. I'll also note that there are other area of 5E where there were oversights, I'm sure, but they've been clea this area was intentional.

If 5e was so perfect, JC wouldnt be bombarded by questions on Sage Advice all the time.

Nobody has claimed perfection - but a lot of Sage Advice questions are people saying, "Do you really mean this?" when they really do mean it.[/quote]

Also, if you realise, not many people agree with you, and that's because the Pact Weapon passed the 'duck test' as a magic weapon.

If I said rain was wet, and nobody agreed with me, but three people talked about how dry rain could be... do you think the majority of people believe rain is dry?

The book means what it says it means.

 

[Dausuul]

"This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage."

They went out of their way to specify the purpose for which the weapon counts as magical. If they just wanted it to be magic for all purposes, they'd have said:

"This weapon counts as magical."

Since they didn't, the strong presumption is that the rules mean what they say here.

 

[BluejayJunior]

However, that is not what the rules say in this instance.It is non-magical, but counts as magical for the specified purposes. That is EXACTLY what it says. There is no interpretation to be made there.A trinket summoned by Prestidigitation? It is non-magical EXPLICITLY in the description, but it was created by magic. Regardless, there are plenty of things that "count as magical" without being magical.

The rule does not say that it is non-magical. It says you create a pact weapon and that the weapon counts as magical for the purpose of ignoring resistance. Nowhere does it explicitly say that the weapon is non-magical. We are both reading the rule exactly as written and coming to different conclusions, so obviously there is interpretation.

Prestidigitation uses magic to create a non-magical trinket. But it never says that it counts as magical. And the spell explicitly calls out that it is non-magical. Nothing gives the impression that it is both mechanically non-magical and magical at the time depending on it usage. If anything, the fact that it is explicitly called out as nonmagical in this case, means that creating an item by magic in other instances means that it is magic.

 

[jgsugden]

The rule does not say that it is non-magical. It says you create a pact weapon and that the weapon counts as magical for the purpose of ignoring resistance. Nowhere does it explicitly say that the weapon is non-magical. We are both reading the rule exactly as written and coming to different conclusions, so obviously there is interpretation.

Except you're reading the rule in a way that implies the authors went out of their way to be obtuse. If it is magical, they'll call it magical. They will not use extra words to create ambiguity for no reason.

Prestidigitation uses magic to create a non-magical trinket. But it never says that it counts as magical. And the spell explicitly calls out that it is non-magical. Nothing gives the impression that it is both mechanically non-magical and magical at the time depending on it usage. If anything, the fact that it is explicitly called out as nonmagical in this case, means that creating an item by magic in other instances means that it is magic.

What happens when the spell ends? The item disappears. And that is happenning because.... the non-magical item is made by magic and exists only as long as magic holds it there.

I'm not really interested in going back and forth on these issues, folks, when the counterarguments rely upon the authors being idiots.

 

[BluejayJunior]

I'm not really interested in going back and forth on these issues, folks, when the counterarguments rely upon the authors being idiots.

If that's the way you want to play the rule, then that's fine. But don't ask for rules clarification and then disparage anyone who argues against you. My argument is in no way saying that authors are idiots or being obtuse. My argument is that when something is considered magical for resistances, it counts as a magical weapon. That seems reasonable.
I completely understand how you are coming to your conclusion and understand your logic, even if I don't agree with it. You asked a question and have gotten answers supporting both sides.