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



## jgsugden (Mar 1, 2019)

Apologies f this has been hashed out before - I searched for it and did not find it.

We have a 9th level Hexblade with Improved Pact Weapon as an Invocation, and Pact of the Blade.  They have Cast Elemental Weapon (a Hexblade spell) with a 5th level slot.  Their weapon is a 2 handed sword they created with Pact of the Blade.

*Pact of the Blade:* You can use your action to create a pact weapon in your empty hand... This weapon counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.

*Improved Pact Weapon: *You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.

In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.

*Elemental Weapon:* A nonmagical weapon you touch becomes a magic weapon.  Choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. For the duration, the weapon has a +1 bonus to attack rolls and deals an extra 1d4 damage of the chosen type when it hits.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th or 6th level, the bonus to attack rolls increases to +2 and the extra damage increases to 2d4. When you use a spell slot of 7th level or higher, the bonus increases to +3 and the extra damage increases to 3d4.

---- So, your summoned/created weapon counts as magical for specifi purposes, but is not magical.  You can use it as a focus and it gets +1 to hit and damage generally - but nothing makes it a magic weapon and the language specifies speifically that it is only sometimes a magic weapon (as in when you used your Pact abilities with an existing magic weapon).  When you cast Elemental weapon,  it is not a magic weapon and gets +2 to hit and +2d4 elemental (you choose) damage.

Is all of that right?

If so, does the +2/2d4 damage go on top of the Improved Pact Weapon +1/+1 for to hit/damage? 

Now, we can also use the weapon as an implement.  Does the Improved Pact Weapon and Elemental Weapon damage bonus to hit and damage apply to damage from an Eldritch Blast cast while using the weapon as an implement?  The Improved Pact Weapon applies the bonus to the weapon/implement's attack and damage rolls ... are the spell attack rolls and damage rolls onsidered to be the weapon and damage rolls of the implement if the implement was used?  Similarly, Elemental weapon doesn't specify weapon attack rolls... just attack rolls.


----------



## BluejayJunior (Mar 1, 2019)

Using a weapon as a focus does not confer it's bonus to hit and damage to spells cast while using it as a focus. Even though a magic weapon is being used as the focus, the spell is not an attack from that weapon. Being able to use it as a focus just allows you to use the weapon without needing a free hand for casting spells. It is a conduit for focusing your magical energy, not another way to attack with the weapon.

I wouldn't allow Elemental weapon to be used on a summoned pact weapon. The trait already specifies that the weapon is considered magical. Plus a weapon that is summoned from nothingness doesn't seem like a nonmagical weapon to me. I think it's splitting hairs to say it's a magic weapon for something, but a nonmagic weapon for other things. But, if your table is fine with that, go for it. 

The +1 from Improved Pact Weapon definitely wouldn't stack with Elemental Weapon, though. Elemental weapon makes it a magic weapon with bonuses to hit and damage, thus negating the +1 from Improved Pact Weapon.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 1, 2019)

1) bonus doesn’t apply to spells (it’s a focus, but nothing says its bonus goes to spells).

2) you would have a +2 bonus (pact weapon says it gives a bonus ONLY if you don’t already get a magic weapon bonus...so it doesn’t stack).

3) with those notes, I see no issue casting the spell on the pact weapon, I think it’s awesome


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 1, 2019)

Recall that this is NOT A MAGIC WEAPON, but counts as one for several purposes.   It is clear that it is not a magic weapon.


----------



## 77IM (Mar 1, 2019)

As for the pact weapon being magical: I could see an argument either way. There's a broad category of things in D&D that are "supernatural" but not quite magical. For example, a ghost. Most people would say that a ghost clearly violates the laws of physics. But, most of us don't think of ghosts as "magical," either. The other classic example is the dragon's breath weapon and the dragon's ability to fly. Neither ability is realistic, but we don't usually think of them as "magical." (Although, even that is open to interpretation. The MM goes on and on about how dragons are inherently magical; lair effects and regional effects are created by "the dragon's magic." So maybe they do fly by magic? Or at least breathe magic fire?) So the pact weapon could be such a thing. OTOH, I tend to interpret "this weapon counts as magical for purpose X" to mean, "this weapon _is_ magical but purpose X is the thing we were thinking about when we wrote this rule."

That said, even if the pact weapon is not-quite-magical, it still wouldn't stack with _elemental weapon_. It's because I view this sentence: "In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls," as invariant with regard to sequence of events. In other words, if you conjure a pact weapon with a +1 bonus, and THEN make the pact weapon magical via a spell or other effect (the paladin has a Channel Divinity that can do it, for example), the "unless" comes into effect retroactively.


----------



## 77IM (Mar 1, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> Recall that this is NOT A MAGIC WEAPON, but counts as one for several purposes.   It is clear that it is not a magic weapon.




Actually, it's not super clear; it's up to the DM to decide whether any particular effect or object is "magical" or not. I think I would agree with you on this one, because I tend to look for the actual word "magic" or a synonym, and there's nothing like that in the description of how the weapon was created. Also, you can turn magic weapons into a pact weapon, and so the created one stands sort of in contrast to that. Also also, I think casting _elemental weapon_ on it sounds awesome. But other DMs would say that creating a weapon from thin air is very much magical, and I don't think using rules-language to argue against that is a very fruitful path.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Mar 1, 2019)

Your pact weapon in this instance is not a magic weapon. Improved pact weapon gives it +1. Then you get +2 from casting a spell Elemental weapon. The rub is that Elemental weapon specifies that the weapon that you touch becomes a magic weapon (for the spells duration). Therefore, as improved pact weapon specifies, they would not stack.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 3, 2019)

However you read it, it doesn't stack - that's the general rule for 5e. You have an ability that gives +1 and an ability that gives +2. The better one applies (+2). There is no interpretation of 5e rules that gives you +3.


----------



## Blue (Mar 3, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> However you read it, it doesn't stack - that's the general rule for 5e. You have an ability that gives +1 and an ability that gives +2. The better one applies (+2). There is no interpretation of 5e rules that gives you +3.




There is absolutely no such rule.  The actual general rule is the exact opposite - everything stacks.

There is a exception where you are applying two bonuses *of the same name* you take the more powerful instead of stacking.  This was originally only for spells, listed in the PHB, but it was made into a general rule and is now in the DMG Errata.

Here's the rule:



> Chapter 8
> *Combining Game Effects (p. 252).* This is a new subsection at the end of the “Combat” section:
> Different game features can affect a target at the same time.  But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.


----------



## 77IM (Mar 3, 2019)

This ^^. It's why so many spells and effects that give a bonus to attack/damage explicitly say that they don't stack with magic weapon bonuses.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 3, 2019)

Normal stacking rules aside, pact weapon mentions that the bonus it provides doesn’t stack with a magic weapon bonus


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 3, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> Normal stacking rules aside, pact weapon mentions that the bonus it provides doesn’t stack with a magic weapon bonus



Improved Pact Weapon's bonus does not - Pact Weapon by itself - doesn't have any language about this as it gives no bonuses by itself.  Improved Pact Weapon's restriction only applies if it is a Magic Weapon.  Elemental Weapon does make the weapon a magic weapon, so thre improved stack does not apply...

But I still question the rules about whether a weapon's bonuses apply when it is used as an implement.  The language under improved pact weapon and elemental damage is different... whle elemental weapon seems like a non-starter, improved pact weapon's language (is a spell cast using the weapon as an implement an attack roll/damage roll of the implement/weapon?  What specific language in the books determines this?) has more amiguity.


----------



## CleverNickName (Mar 3, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> Recall that this is NOT A MAGIC WEAPON, but counts as one for several purposes.   It is clear that it is not a magic weapon.



I look at it from the other side of the coin.

Recall that this is not a magic weapon, BUT COUNTS AS ONE.  It's clear that it counts as a magic weapon.


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 3, 2019)

CleverNickName said:


> I look at it from the other side of the coin.
> 
> Recall that this is not a magic weapon, BUT COUNTS AS ONE.  It's clear that it counts as a magic weapon.



Except it specifies the exact limited purposes for which it counts as a magic weapon.  There is a reason they do not just call it a magic weapon... it is to limit treating it as a magic weapon to just the specified limitations.


----------



## CleverNickName (Mar 3, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> Except it specifies the exact limited purposes for which it counts as a magic weapon.  There is a reason they do not just call it a magic weapon... it is to limit treating it as a magic weapon to just the specified limitations.



But it can't specify every possible purpose, can it?  That rule could also have been written to limit the weapon _from_ every other _non-specified_ situation in the game.

(shrug)  This is all just game theory and speculation, though; things get weird when weapons, magic(ish) items, and spells start getting layered on top of each other.  There are just too many possible combinations to consider.  I think that's why it's ultimately up to the DM to describe the nature of magic in the game world, along with its limitations.


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 3, 2019)

CleverNickName said:


> But it can't specify every possible purpose, can it?  That rule could also have been written to limit the weapon _from_ every other _non-specified_ situation in the game.



Their options were to say one of the following:

1.) It is a magic weapon or counts as a magic weapon for all purposes, 
2.) It is a magic weapon, but does not count as one for specified purposes, 
3.) It is not a magic weapon, but specifies as one for specified purposes, or
4.) It is not a magic weapon and does not count as one.

They selected option 3.  It was intentional and they reworked all of this language in errata/revisions for specific reasons to be exactly what it is today.

We can shrug at a lot of things - but here we know that specific language was intentionally implemented and that they were careful about what language they used.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Mar 4, 2019)

I would probably interpret the rule as effectively meaning  the pact blade is a magic weapon. I don't see any strong reason to favor the other interpretation. I think the reason it is phrased as it is it that it is merely a conjuration of magical force, not a true item.

On the other hand, I'd just house rule Elemental Weapon to work on magic weapons because there is no balance reason it shouldn't, and I despise rules that require your weapon to be nonmagical to get an enhancement for no reason. The pluses won't stack though.


----------



## BluejayJunior (Mar 4, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> But I still question the rules about whether a weapon's bonuses apply when it is used as an implement.  The language under improved pact weapon and elemental damage is different... whle elemental weapon seems like a non-starter, improved pact weapon's language (is a spell cast using the weapon as an implement an attack roll/damage roll of the implement/weapon?  What specific language in the books determines this?) has more amiguity.




There is no ambiguity. The text does exactly what is says. Your attacks with the weapon get a +1 to hit and damage. There are no rules that say that using it as a focus lets you add that to your spell rolls. If that is what it meant, that is what would be said. Look at the Staff of the Magi. That item specifically says that it gives +2 to attack and damage rolls with the weapon and then further specifies that spells cast using it also get a +2 to hit.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 4, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> So, your summoned/created weapon counts as magical for specifi purposes, but is not magical.  You can use it as a focus and it gets +1 to hit and damage generally - but nothing makes it a magic weapon and the language specifies speifically that it is only sometimes a magic weapon (as in when you used your Pact abilities with an existing magic weapon).  When you cast Elemental weapon,  it is not a magic weapon and gets +2 to hit and +2d4 elemental (you choose) damage.
> 
> Is all of that right?



That is how I read it, yes.



jgsugden said:


> If so, does the +2/2d4 damage go on top of the Improved Pact Weapon +1/+1 for to hit/damage?



No. While Improved Pact Weapon does not make the weapon magical per se, _elemental weapon_ explicitly does. The weapon becomes a magic weapon that has a bonus to attack and damage rolls; thus, Improved Pact Weapon's bonus will shut off for the duration.



jgsugden said:


> Now, we can also use the weapon as an implement.  Does the Improved Pact Weapon and Elemental Weapon damage bonus to hit and damage apply to damage from an Eldritch Blast cast while using the weapon as an implement?  The Improved Pact Weapon applies the bonus to the weapon/implement's attack and damage rolls ... are the spell attack rolls and damage rolls onsidered to be the weapon and damage rolls of the implement if the implement was used?




Nope. When you cast a spell using a focus, the attack and damage rolls belong to the spell. The focus is merely one of the components of that spell, replacing the material component.

The _rod of the pact keeper_ is an example of a focus that does modify your spell attacks, and the language is written quite differently from magic weapons.


----------



## Immoralkickass (Mar 5, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> Recall that this is NOT A MAGIC WEAPON, but counts as one for several purposes.   It is clear that it is not a magic weapon.




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.


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 5, 2019)

Immoralkickass said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2019)

BluejayJunior said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> *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.
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 5, 2019)

BluejayJunior said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2019)

Immoralkickass said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2019)

"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 (Mar 5, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2019)

BluejayJunior said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> 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.


----------

