Ask the Sage: Quick Rules Questions volume 7 (DnD 5e)

[Librarian]

Hi there! Quick question:

The Hexblade Warlock class feature "Hex Warrior" states: "If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type." Does this override the earlier qualification "one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property" or are hexblade still restricted to 1h weapons when using this feature?

Thanks!

[jj_wolven]

Not necessarily. You would need another feature that specifies you can summon a different pact weapon. If there is nothing, then the same restrictions still apply.

-me

[Librarian]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "another feature that specifies you can summon a different pact weapon." As I understand it, the Pact ability allows you to create and summon any melee weapon.

[Imveros]

Base pact of the blade let's you summon any melee weapon.

Improved pact weapon allows you to summon ranged weapons.

The ability itself includes the overrides needed for two handed Cha attacks and for Cha based heavy crossbow attacks. Who needs EB am I right?

[Librarian]

lol I think what you're saying is that a Hexblade Pact of the Blade can wield a greatsword (summoned with their pact ability) and get his +CHA to hit and damage?

[Imveros]

I always use a Glaive myself, but yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You see builds for it all the time. It's honestly the only thing that makes pact of the blade any good. Especially considering that pact of the chain can give you shillelagh cantrip which would let you have a one-handed cha hit/damage weapon without hexblade or pact of the blade!

You can also add elven accuracy to your darkness/devil's sight cheese to max the crit fishing for double damage on those smites

[jj_wolven]

I just went to the srd to check, but did not see the original limitation you mentioned (1H).

-me

[Auron3991]

So, just something I was wondering:

Control Flames (XGtE pg.152) states that you can expand any non-magical fire 5ft provided there is fuel present in the new location. Now, given that a lit candle is non-magical and clothing made of natural materials tends to burn, does that mean someone could run around with a candle and use Control Flames to light cloth-wearing enemies on fire?

[Gaijin]

Edited for clarity (After jj_wolven's following post.)

RAI - No.

• Worn items are generally protected from direct attacks unless otherwise stated.
• Cantrips are not intended to replicate other cantrips, or higher level abilities.

RAW - No*.

*The phrasing is ambiguous, but a reasonable interpretation should suffice.

The entry for the spell specifies "Fuel" as opposed to merely "flammable objects". "Fuel" consists of things that are collectively used with the "intent to produce heat", such as oil, wood, paper, etc.

While clean fabrics such as cotton and linen are relatively flammable, other common materials like wool are actually noted for being fire-retardant, so it would take very little for an able-bodied enemy to negate the burning before it could take hold.

[jj_wolven]

You can expand the fire, not transfer. You would need to hold the candle against the person's clothes, then cast the spell to extend it to the 'new' fuel.
It would not work with an attack - you wouldn't be holding the flame against the clothing long enough.
A saving throw might be allowed, but it would be pretty easy since they just need to break contact.

If they are immobile, then I would allow it.

-me

[Treble83]

Ear for Deceit
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you develop a keen ear for picking out lies. Whenever you make a Wisdom (Insight) check to determine whether a creature is lying, treat a roll of 7 or lower on the d20 as an 8.

Should/Does this rule apply to Natural 1's? Cards on the table... I had a RL GM that was a bit of a stickler and his ruling was NO: It would not and should not because a natural 1 indicates a critical failure, no matter your skill level.

[Gaijin]

The idea of "Critical Failures" is a common house rule that doesn't actually exist in 5e.

If the DM is running with a "Critical Failure" house rule, then that's the rule for the table, and if there is a dispute, it should be understood as such.

---

Personally, if Critical Failures are on the table, I would always leave them as an option. There is always a chance that a character simply has a bad day (Or got a bit of troll in their ear that they forgot to clean out).

However, your DM may be willing to compromise with a penalized "Confirm Failure" roll to account for Ear of Deceit's benefits. (Another house rule)

[Treble83]

Sort of a follow on question... Is "Critical Failure on NAT 1 & Critical Success on NAT 20" assumed to be the standard on RPGX unless otherwise stated or is the opposite true?

[Gaijin]

I don't know about "assumed". It really depends on your DM.

Some games are more Mechanics Driven, while others more Story Driven.

If it matters to you, it is always an option to ask before the campaign starts. Most DMs are receptive to making or changing rules before a campaign starts, so long as everyone is on the same page from Day 0.

[jj_wolven]

Outside of houserules, criticals success or failure has never been a rule with skill.
RAW in most systems, they only apply to attacks and saving throws.

-me