Pact of the Blade and Green-Flame Blade query

In the material component of green-flame blade it says it requires "a melee weapon worth at least 1sp".

Can I use my pact weapon as both the spellcasting focus and the material component for the cantrip?

So, first things first — for spells that have a material component with a cost listed like this, you cannot use a spellcasting focus. You have to actually have the material component listed.

But if you're asking whether you can use a pact weapon as the material component for something like this, the answer is that it depends on what you mean by "pact weapon". Pact of the Blade allows you to do two things: conjure a weapon out of nothing to be your pact weapon, or bind an existing magic weapon to be your pact weapon.

If the pact weapon you're talking about is a weapon you've conjured out of nothing, then the answer is no, because it's not a "real" weapon and isn't worth anything, so it doesn't meet the material component requirement.

If the pact weapon you're talking about is an existing magic weapon you bound as your pact weapon, then the answer is yes, because realistically any magic weapon is worth much more than 1 SP.

I am going to disagree with wagnarokkr on the summoned pact blade aspect. The summoned pact blade imo is worth whatever the weapon you are mimicking is worth. Would you be cheating people if you sold it, sure, would it be hard to pull off also sure. IMO you are summoning a weapon with all its stats including its value. 

So, I think RAW, wagnarokkr is right, but practically, the value requirement is a hack to prevent people using GFB and its kin with a component pouch/focus and no weapon, so there's a reasonable cast to be made to one's DM that it ought to work.

The other possibility is that it's supposed to disallow conjured weapons, but it doesn't make it clear enough and, frankly, I don't see any balance issues with it, even with the higher-powered weapon-conjuring spells like shadow blade.

Quote from jl8e >>

So, I think RAW, wagnarokkr is right, but practically, the value requirement is a hack to prevent people using GFB and its kin with a component pouch/focus and no weapon, so there's a reasonable cast to be made to one's DM that it ought to work.

The other possibility is that it's supposed to disallow conjured weapons, but it doesn't make it clear enough and, frankly, I don't see any balance issues with it, even with the higher-powered weapon-conjuring spells like shadow blade.

The RAW about pact of the blade is just this, "As a Bonus Action, you can conjure a pact weapon in your hand—a Simple or Martial Melee weapon of your choice with which you bond" If you conjure a great sword, it actually is a great sword its not a spectral construct the vaguely resembles one, its a great sword. And what is its value in the PH, 50GP. That is more than 1 SP. I personally would have preferred if pact of the blade created something more akin to a green lanterns force constructs, allow it to look like whatever you want, not modeled on specific weapons but some kind of template you could modify up a bit. But oh well. 

That being said I still think the material component part is just a dumb add, who cares if they cast green flame blade without a weapon. Let someone punch with it if they want, unless its a monk build they will do less damage than if they had used a weapon. They have so many stupid you can only have fun the way we intended rules in the game its kind of insane. 

To sum it up, it's basically up to the DM on how to understand it.

I would lean towards 

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

So, first things first — for spells that have a material component with a cost listed like this, you cannot use a spellcasting focus. You have to actually have the material component listed.

But if you're asking whether you can use a pact weapon as the material component for something like this, the answer is that it depends on what you mean by "pact weapon". Pact of the Blade allows you to do two things: conjure a weapon out of nothing to be your pact weapon, or bind an existing magic weapon to be your pact weapon.

If the pact weapon you're talking about is a weapon you've conjured out of nothing, then the answer is no, because it's not a "real" weapon and isn't worth anything, so it doesn't meet the material component requirement.

 

I would support this interpretation on the conjured weapon. I'd lean towards worth as in "What would a normal person, who wants this item, fully in knowledge of its properties and capabilities, but without any immediate pressing  need for it, be willing to pay for it?"

And a conjured greatsword that is going to disappear in one minute is not going to be worth 50gp for a typical greatsword buyer. If I don't have an immediate pressing need for a greatsword,  I'd argue it isn't even worth 1 SP.

Quote from notovny >>

I would lean towards 

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

So, first things first — for spells that have a material component with a cost listed like this, you cannot use a spellcasting focus. You have to actually have the material component listed.

But if you're asking whether you can use a pact weapon as the material component for something like this, the answer is that it depends on what you mean by "pact weapon". Pact of the Blade allows you to do two things: conjure a weapon out of nothing to be your pact weapon, or bind an existing magic weapon to be your pact weapon.

If the pact weapon you're talking about is a weapon you've conjured out of nothing, then the answer is no, because it's not a "real" weapon and isn't worth anything, so it doesn't meet the material component requirement.

 

 

I would support this interpretation on the conjured weapon. I'd lean towards worth as in "What would a normal person, who wants this item, fully in knowledge of its properties and capabilities, but without any immediate pressing  need for it, be willing to pay for it?"

And a conjured greatsword that is going to disappear in one minute is not going to be worth 50gp for a typical greatsword buyer. If I don't have an immediate pressing need for a greatsword,  I'd argue it isn't even worth 1 SP.

 100%

If you cannot convert the item to currency (like say via sale) it has no financial value.

Quote from notovny >>

I would lean towards 

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

So, first things first — for spells that have a material component with a cost listed like this, you cannot use a spellcasting focus. You have to actually have the material component listed.

But if you're asking whether you can use a pact weapon as the material component for something like this, the answer is that it depends on what you mean by "pact weapon". Pact of the Blade allows you to do two things: conjure a weapon out of nothing to be your pact weapon, or bind an existing magic weapon to be your pact weapon.

If the pact weapon you're talking about is a weapon you've conjured out of nothing, then the answer is no, because it's not a "real" weapon and isn't worth anything, so it doesn't meet the material component requirement.

 

 

I would support this interpretation on the conjured weapon. I'd lean towards worth as in "What would a normal person, who wants this item, fully in knowledge of its properties and capabilities, but without any immediate pressing  need for it, be willing to pay for it?"

And a conjured greatsword that is going to disappear in one minute is not going to be worth 50gp for a typical greatsword buyer. If I don't have an immediate pressing need for a greatsword,  I'd argue it isn't even worth 1 SP.

Even if you use that logic then no sword has any value if I don't need it, but when I need it whether its temporary or not its value is infinite. 

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from notovny >>

I would lean towards 

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

So, first things first — for spells that have a material component with a cost listed like this, you cannot use a spellcasting focus. You have to actually have the material component listed.

But if you're asking whether you can use a pact weapon as the material component for something like this, the answer is that it depends on what you mean by "pact weapon". Pact of the Blade allows you to do two things: conjure a weapon out of nothing to be your pact weapon, or bind an existing magic weapon to be your pact weapon.

If the pact weapon you're talking about is a weapon you've conjured out of nothing, then the answer is no, because it's not a "real" weapon and isn't worth anything, so it doesn't meet the material component requirement.

 

 

I would support this interpretation on the conjured weapon. I'd lean towards worth as in "What would a normal person, who wants this item, fully in knowledge of its properties and capabilities, but without any immediate pressing  need for it, be willing to pay for it?"

And a conjured greatsword that is going to disappear in one minute is not going to be worth 50gp for a typical greatsword buyer. If I don't have an immediate pressing need for a greatsword,  I'd argue it isn't even worth 1 SP.

 

Even if you use that logic then no sword has any value if I don't need it, but when I need it whether its temporary or not its value is infinite. 

That would be why I included the stipulations "a normal person who wants the item", and "does not have an immediate pressing need for the item" in the post you quoted.

Years later, and while this is truth about converting it to currency... for any still looking this up...
By most accounting standards, the value of an item is the last price paid for it.
SO go up to some joe schmoe on the streets of Bavoria, get 'em to pay 1s for a conjured pact weapon, and then we have established a market value for similar items.  And I betcha you can just get some random person to pay 1s for it.

That said, the Actual INTENT of the 1s requirement is specifically targeted at the shadow blade spell and/or 2h pact weapons (Sadly 1h weapons are affected as a result.)

Quote from Mykael_Svoyce >>

Years later, and while this is truth about converting it to currency... for any still looking this up...
By most accounting standards, the value of an item is the last price paid for it.

That may be true to some extent in real life. It's not how the value of items in D&D rules work, though.

In D&D rules, the value of an item is what's listed as its value in the rules, or (if it's something that has no listed value in the rules) what the DM says it is.

Some DMs may be interested in applying real-world economic principles to the value of things in their games. Most, I suspect, probably are not.

Quote from wagnarokkr >>

Quote from Mykael_Svoyce >>

Years later, and while this is truth about converting it to currency... for any still looking this up...
By most accounting standards, the value of an item is the last price paid for it.

That may be true to some extent in real life. It's not how the value of items in D&D rules work, though.

In D&D rules, the value of an item is what's listed as its value in the rules, or (if it's something that has no listed value in the rules) what the DM says it is.

Some DMs may be interested in applying real-world economic principles to the value of things in their games. Most, I suspect, probably are not.

Yeah. In the D&D rules, monetary value is a proxy for something else. For consumed spell components it's effectively "using this spell too much is supposed to be a drain on your resources". For non-consumed, it's "for whatever reason, we don't want you just using a focus".

 If my players want economic simulation, I'm going to introduce the BBEG who crashes the diamond market such that it's no longer possible to obtain a diamond that's worth 500gp.