Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
It can be interpreted either way, so the DM decides. If any rules lawyer tries to argue that a Shadow Blade is a valid pact weapon or other shenanigans, a strict reading of this section is a RAW way of shutting them down.
D&D 5E Wording of Hex Warrior
I once used a massive boulder as a Pact Weapon. It was a one shot, so balance wasn't a huge priority. I couldn't actually attack with it, but I summoned it in front of doors or in hallways to create choke points. I once summoned it on a roof and broke through the ceiling.
I claimed it was a giants throwing boulder.
I claimed it was a giants throwing boulder.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Strict reading of RAW is what causes the problem. RAW allows Shadow Blade (and giant weapons etc), because nowhere does it actually say "MUST BE FROM THE WEAPON TABLE".
RAW is for idiots, the correct response is "no, you can't have a shadow blade because I'm the DM and I say so".
jmartkdr2
Hero
By that logic you can chose a vorpal sword.
But the text doesn't hold to that - it says "see chapter 5 for weapon options" - it doesn't specifically say those are the only options, but it doesn't imply there are any other options. That would be both a weird stretch and a clear violation of the intent.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Sorry, it's Read(or Rule) As Written, not Read As Implied. If you want to invoke the letter of law then the letter of the law is all you get. It doesn't specifically exclude other options, therefore there are other options. Sure, it's a violation of "intent" but intent is irrelevant to RAW.
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
It doesn't specifically include other options either, which is why both readings are valid. I hope you don't believe there's such a thing as the "one true RAW", because there isn't.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
No, I believe all RAW is stupid. But you reading is certainly not valid, for the same reason the question "have you stopped beating your wife" is not valid.
The text says "you can choose the form this melee weapon takes". There is nothing anywhere that explicitly limits it. Is that because the text is badly worded? Yes. But that is what it says. So any other interpretation is RAI not RAW.
A rule that doesn't say if it includes other options ... doesn't say if it includes other options.
It is false that RAW says "there are other options".
It is false that RAW says "there are no other options".
"It doesn't exclude X, so X is allowed" is adding to the rules as written.
When reading RAW, if you don't admit the wording doesn't cover a case (either way, permitting it or banning it) as a possibility, the result is nonsense. (English, and all sufficiently powerful formal systems of describing rules, are guaranteed to have such cases, so not admitting their existence means your reading will be nonsense)
It is true that people use RAW to mean "there is nothing in the wording that disagrees with this interpretation I have invented", but the ability for people to use the term RAW to speak nonsense doesn't mean all RAW is stupid.
Understanding what is actually written, and its limitations, is possible and useful. Not, like, the only useful way to use the text, or even the most useful, but still useful.
It is false that RAW says "there are other options".
It is false that RAW says "there are no other options".
"It doesn't exclude X, so X is allowed" is adding to the rules as written.
When reading RAW, if you don't admit the wording doesn't cover a case (either way, permitting it or banning it) as a possibility, the result is nonsense. (English, and all sufficiently powerful formal systems of describing rules, are guaranteed to have such cases, so not admitting their existence means your reading will be nonsense)
It is true that people use RAW to mean "there is nothing in the wording that disagrees with this interpretation I have invented", but the ability for people to use the term RAW to speak nonsense doesn't mean all RAW is stupid.
Understanding what is actually written, and its limitations, is possible and useful. Not, like, the only useful way to use the text, or even the most useful, but still useful.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
In this case, you are wrong. The word "choose" is qualified only by "melee weapon". The word "choose" has no other limitations. That's English.
And, when reading RAW, any result is nonsense.
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
Except for the sentence in parenthesis....
I agree that RAW is stupid and not how the rules are meant to be interpreted, but that doesn't mean I'll give you a free pass on incorrectly criticizing my RAW interpretations.
(I'd also like to point out that nowhere does it say that the form the weapon takes is limited to something that exists in the game, so by your reading "My Pact Weapon is a lightsaber that does 20d10 damage" is legal)
