D&D 5E Question about hex warrior

[DND_Reborn]

AL DMs have to be "lame" i.e. rigid in their rule interpretations. That's why so many of us don't like playing AL.

And given that the whole point is consistency, it is unlikely a different AL DM would rule differently.

While I would be unhappy about the rod not being allowed, I can at least understand the reason, even if I don't agree with it.

My comment was really about them ruling a staff could not be used as both a focus and a pact weapon, since it is clearly listed as both. If they refused to allow my character to use it as both, THAT would be lame.

 

[jasper]

Now, don't get me started (I refuse to debate it yet again) about the "melee weapon" is something on the Melee Weapons table section. It isn't. A table leg can be wielded as a melee weapon due to its similarity to a club, as per the section on Improvised Weapons. A rod can be considered likewise, and thus, it is a melee weapon.

As far as the invocation, that is for other weapons which are not also foci (which is most of them). A staff, however, is both a simple weapon and an arcane focus.

As an AL DM, I would rule it would have to be on the "Melee Weapon" table. And as an AL DM, a table leg would be improvised. Why did I input "Melee Weapon" in quotes? Because some times D&D uses English language as is. Other times it uses words as "GAME" words.
As to OP question, I would have to bring out the books due not many people play hexblade here.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As an AL DM, I would rule it would have to be on the "Melee Weapon" table. And as an AL DM, a table leg would be improvised. Why did I input "Melee Weapon" in quotes? Because some times D&D uses English language as is. Other times it uses words as "GAME" words.
As to OP question, I would have to bring out the books due not many people play hexblade here.

Ok, but as an AL DM, what about the staff?

That was my last point to the OP, if the DM won't permit the rod (i.e. as a club), what argument would stop the staff. It is on the weapon list, but can also serve as a focus as it is listed as an arcane focus.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, but as an AL DM, what about the staff?

That was my last point to the OP, if the DM won't permit the rod (i.e. as a club), what argument would stop the staff. It is on the weapon list, but can also serve as a focus as it is listed as an arcane focus.

I’m not an AL DM, but I’m pretty sure the argument would be that the arcane focus is called a “staff” while the weapon is called a “quarterstaff.” I would of course allow it at my own table, but I wouldn’t count on it being allowed in AL.

 

[jasper]

Ok, but as an AL DM, what about the staff?

That was my last point to the OP, if the DM won't permit the rod (i.e. as a club), what argument would stop the staff. It is on the weapon list, but can also serve as a focus as it is listed as an arcane focus.

Okay without me laying hands on the books. I would say yes for tonight. But moving it to a charisma bonus instead strength. No.
And took me 3 minutes to find staff on the weapon list. I kept passing over Quarterstaff.
***
In England would that be Quidstaff or sixpencestaff?

 

[jasper]

I mean, who wouldn't want to be a Warlock with a Beam Saber?

It would only do longsword damage. I don't care how your special effects dept dresses it up.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hmm... Given the weight is identical, I would think there really is no difference. However, since they are listed as different names, I would have to concede the point to the AL DM if he ruled that way. As I said, to me it is nit-picky and if a ruling that is sensible and non-game-breaking and increases the fun for the player, the DM should permit it--even in AL.

That sort of rigidness is why I would probably never play AL, though.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmm... Given the weight is identical, I would think there really is no difference. However, since they are listed as different names, I would have to concede the point to the AL DM if he ruled that way. As I said, to me it is nit-picky and if a ruling that is sensible and non-game-breaking and increases the fun for the player, the DM should permit it--even in AL.

That sort of rigidness is why I would probably never play AL, though.

Same

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To be fair, the same DM would probably rule differently in their home game and the AL game.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Ok, but as an AL DM, what about the staff?

As a (former) AL GM, my understanding of the rules is:

An arcane focus (staff) can be used as an improvised weapon. Since it resembles pretty closely a quarterstaff then it would do 1d6 bl damage and have the versatile (1d8) tag. Same for an arcane focus (rod) and a club.

An arcane focus (staff) is not a magical weapon, so a Pact of the Blade warlock canot transform it into their pact weapon. It is not a weapon, so the same warlock cannot create a pact weapon in its form. Similarly, a Hexblade warlock cannot use the Hex Warrior feature to channel their will through an arcane focus (staff).

If a Pact of the Blade warlock wants to use their pact weapon as a spellcasting focus then they must take the Improved Pact Weapon invocation.

What about magic items? Some GMs allow magic rods and staves to be used as spellcasting focuses but that is a houserule - no rules in the book say that any magic item can be used as a spellcastiong focus. Crawford did, however, tweet a couple of years ago that wands can be used as focuses. You may or may not treat that as an official rule; most AL GMs won't.

Magic rods, staves and wands are not weapons (for example, the description of the rod of absorbtion says "Rod, very rare (requires attunement)", not "Weapon (any)." You can use them to hit someone, using the improvised weapon rules, but they are not weapons for the purpose of features.

In short, an "arcane focus (staff)" is not a "quarterstaff." An "arcane focus (rod)" is not a "club."