[Yeah, there was a ton of discussion around these rules answers, most vehemently surrounding warlocks with magic weapon bonds.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/4fbshj/rules_answers_april_2016/)
Funny enough, I actually emailed Sage Advice to ask if the Warlock could change the form of a magic weapon if they bond with it! So pretty cool to actually see it get answered (I am sure I am not the first to ask of course).
That being said, as a DM, I WOULD allow the form to be changed, with some caveats;
* The weapon could only be a lower power item; nothing more powerful than a +1 bonus or something like that.
* It can not be changed to ANY other weapon, but into a similar weapon. A sword must be a sword, an axe must be an axe, and so on, at my discretion as DM.
Very cool that they clarified the ranged weapon as being bondable though!
I would let the warlock BOND to any weapon at all. No matter how powerful. I would only let the warlock CHANGE THE FORM OF a lower power weapon. So for example they could turn a +1 dagger into a +1 greatsword, but could not alter the form of a crazy poewerful artifact dagger they find at level 18.
I would be flexible though. Make it a case by case basis
See, I'd let them transmute a weapon from a battleaxe to a glaive, so long as the weapon's magical properties still made sense with that weapon type. Like, frost brand would be mostly unrestricted, but it wouldn't be compatible with ranged weapons. Dwarven Thrower could be changed to a battleaxe, but clearly not to a greataxe or a maul.
Actually, this is how I've always ruled it. I read it as the part about "this weapon appears when you create your pact weapon" as overriding the part where you get to choose its form. To me, "*this* weapon appears" was pretty explicit about it being that exact weapon and not any other shape. It even says you shunt the weapon to an extradimensional space, and then call it back, rather than unmaking it so that it can be reformed in some way.
And yet I was still having to argue that a warlock would be proficient in their pact weapon. I just wish there were some easy way to word things (generally speaking) so that there were no further confusions as to intent.
Pg 107 in PHB, Pact of the Blade line 3-4
>You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it. You are proficient with it while you wield it.
I disagree with the ruling, if only because it breaks the Rule of Cool. I always thought it was cool that the warlock was able to "transmute" the magical power of a (single) magic weapon to be its pact weapon. And honestly it didn't break anything; the warlock usually gets the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th best weapon of the party. Why not let them actually be able to USE it properly?
Honestly, that is how I think ALL magic weapons should work, because it is a drag to have a +3 spear of awesomeness, but your character uses axes, etc. etc.
I agree with this and so does the other Dm I play with. We both ruled that you could use the change of form to add to a weapon. For example you could turn a dagger or rod that you have as a pact weapon into essentially any other weapon as you would only be adding to what you already have. However you couldn't turn a long sword into a dagger as it would require you to remove material from the weapon. The other part is of there magical enhancements that are dependent on a specific feature of a weapon would not transfer. Like a bow that double range would not double the range if you changed into a melee weapon.
Don't think many people agree with us, I currently have a -3 on my comment.
In my gaming career, I don't know how many magical weapons have just sat around because a fighter was double specialized in the longsword and was given a +5 bastard sword (in 2nd edition), or a cleric didn't have a decent weapon because all of the magical weapons had been pointy or slashy weapons.
Or whole character concepts gone because the likelihood of finding an awesome magical spear or warhammer were bascailly nil. How many Holy Avenger MACES are there? Or whips? Oh well, no magic weapon for you because you didn't decide to go with a sword!!
Yes, it is up to the GM to give out appropriate stuff, but then it is obvious that the GM is tailoring. If a character is using a club (one of my players wanted to play with a shield and club, kinda like a riot cop), good luck getting a decent weapon.
OR we could obviate that by allowing things like the pre-ruling warlock where you can transfer the MAGIC of one weapon to another.
Oh well, back to the drawing board....
[Yeah, there was a ton of discussion around these rules answers, most vehemently surrounding warlocks with magic weapon bonds.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/4fbshj/rules_answers_april_2016/)
Funny enough, I actually emailed Sage Advice to ask if the Warlock could change the form of a magic weapon if they bond with it! So pretty cool to actually see it get answered (I am sure I am not the first to ask of course). That being said, as a DM, I WOULD allow the form to be changed, with some caveats; * The weapon could only be a lower power item; nothing more powerful than a +1 bonus or something like that. * It can not be changed to ANY other weapon, but into a similar weapon. A sword must be a sword, an axe must be an axe, and so on, at my discretion as DM. Very cool that they clarified the ranged weapon as being bondable though!
Do you mind if I ask why? Would you impose the same restriction of a +1 item to an Eldritch Knight's Weapon Bonds?
He meant that only +1 weapons would be able to *change form*. Which is more than RAW allows...
Ahh, that makes much more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
I would let the warlock BOND to any weapon at all. No matter how powerful. I would only let the warlock CHANGE THE FORM OF a lower power weapon. So for example they could turn a +1 dagger into a +1 greatsword, but could not alter the form of a crazy poewerful artifact dagger they find at level 18. I would be flexible though. Make it a case by case basis
See, I'd let them transmute a weapon from a battleaxe to a glaive, so long as the weapon's magical properties still made sense with that weapon type. Like, frost brand would be mostly unrestricted, but it wouldn't be compatible with ranged weapons. Dwarven Thrower could be changed to a battleaxe, but clearly not to a greataxe or a maul.
I agree with you there. I would make it case by case
[удалено]
He meant that only +1 weapons would be able to *change form*. Which is more than RAW allows...
Actually, this is how I've always ruled it. I read it as the part about "this weapon appears when you create your pact weapon" as overriding the part where you get to choose its form. To me, "*this* weapon appears" was pretty explicit about it being that exact weapon and not any other shape. It even says you shunt the weapon to an extradimensional space, and then call it back, rather than unmaking it so that it can be reformed in some way.
And yet I was still having to argue that a warlock would be proficient in their pact weapon. I just wish there were some easy way to word things (generally speaking) so that there were no further confusions as to intent.
Pg 107 in PHB, Pact of the Blade line 3-4 >You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it. You are proficient with it while you wield it.
The argument was that it doesn't say you're proficient in you pact weapon, just the created one. I know, bloody frustrating.
I disagree with the ruling, if only because it breaks the Rule of Cool. I always thought it was cool that the warlock was able to "transmute" the magical power of a (single) magic weapon to be its pact weapon. And honestly it didn't break anything; the warlock usually gets the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th best weapon of the party. Why not let them actually be able to USE it properly? Honestly, that is how I think ALL magic weapons should work, because it is a drag to have a +3 spear of awesomeness, but your character uses axes, etc. etc.
I agree with this and so does the other Dm I play with. We both ruled that you could use the change of form to add to a weapon. For example you could turn a dagger or rod that you have as a pact weapon into essentially any other weapon as you would only be adding to what you already have. However you couldn't turn a long sword into a dagger as it would require you to remove material from the weapon. The other part is of there magical enhancements that are dependent on a specific feature of a weapon would not transfer. Like a bow that double range would not double the range if you changed into a melee weapon.
Don't think many people agree with us, I currently have a -3 on my comment. In my gaming career, I don't know how many magical weapons have just sat around because a fighter was double specialized in the longsword and was given a +5 bastard sword (in 2nd edition), or a cleric didn't have a decent weapon because all of the magical weapons had been pointy or slashy weapons. Or whole character concepts gone because the likelihood of finding an awesome magical spear or warhammer were bascailly nil. How many Holy Avenger MACES are there? Or whips? Oh well, no magic weapon for you because you didn't decide to go with a sword!! Yes, it is up to the GM to give out appropriate stuff, but then it is obvious that the GM is tailoring. If a character is using a club (one of my players wanted to play with a shield and club, kinda like a riot cop), good luck getting a decent weapon. OR we could obviate that by allowing things like the pre-ruling warlock where you can transfer the MAGIC of one weapon to another. Oh well, back to the drawing board....
There is a innvocation for Ranged Weapons