yeah, I saw Crawford's clarification. But, I'd note he said "I'd allow it" rather than "this is what it says". He's essentially pushing a houserule. RAW, it does not work and I would not be surprised at all to see him flip-flop on this like he has on multiple other things, such as shield master.
No explanation for that change makes any sense to me other than a shadowblade nerf, because a quick look at the compendium doesn't show any /melee/ weapons that cost less than 1sp.
yeah, I saw Crawford's clarification. But, I'd note he said "I'd allow it" rather than "this is what it says". He's essentially pushing a houserule. RAW, it does not work and I would not be surprised at all to see him flip-flop on this like he has on multiple other things, such as shield master.
No explanation for that change makes any sense to me other than a shadowblade nerf, because a quick look at the compendium doesn't show any /melee/ weapons that cost less than 1sp.
that actually makes sense, although it does say that it requires a melee weapon which a component pouch isn't one. Before it said "a weapon"
Here's the original text:
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack’s normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
This spell’s damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 thunder damage to the target, and the damage the target takes for moving increases to 2d8. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level and 17th level.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Honestly that seems like a weird change. If someone really wanted to use their component pouch as an improvised weapon wouldn't that still count? It is a weapon (if improvised) and it does cost more than a silver.
I know it's not really a weapon but hey I wouldn't say no to someone trying to do that. I mean they don't get proficiency to hit so seems like a bit of a waste of an action to likely miss, but if they want to go for it.
Considering an arcane focus can be a wide variety of things.. I imagine they just didn't want that sort of weirdness going... There's also the questino if the arcane focus/component bag can still functino as your arcane focus if you're using it as an improved weapon.. I think the clarificatino of it actually needing to be a weapon makes sense.. It's just a shame that it brings some serious doubt with regards to shadowblade since that apparently wasn't the intention
Yeah, you still needed a weapon with the old wording, but you could've technically cast the spell with a focus and I guess they really wanted to make it extra clear for narrative purposes that the weapon you attack with is also what you're waving around to cast the spell.
In my opinion the combo was never broken and since the material isn't consumed (and it's super cheap) it's less about paying to cast the spell and more about the quality of the component. Shadow Blade is a superior weapon to any of the mundane swords in the Player's Handbook. I don't see a good reason to ban it.
Interesting, I haven't yet had a chance to use blink so my advice was purely theoretical. What is it about blink you don't like? On paper it seems really strong.
Blur is certainly strong but I'd rather use my cocentration for other things myself.
It was exactly what Takai said. As a Bladesinger, you already have a really good AC and with things like Shield, it will be really hard to hit you. By removing yourself from the battlefield, you are increasing the pressure in your allies. It’s also important to mention that Blink is 50/50 chance of effectiveness, you rely a lot on the dice.
Blur is never a really good choice for most of the regular Wizards out there, but it’s fantastic for a Bladesinger due to the force multiplier that is being attacked at disadvantage having a great AC. However, when applicable, PF&G is always better.
Of course it’s a matter of play style and setup. Shadow Blade is usually the way to go or any other game-changer spell like Web, Hold Person and the like, but just to highlight that Blur is even better than Mirror Image for a Bladesinger (or any other good armored Wizard).
Yeah, you still needed a weapon with the old wording, but you could've technically cast the spell with a focus and I guess they really wanted to make it extra clear for narrative purposes that the weapon you attack with is also what you're waving around to cast the spell.
In my opinion the combo was never broken and since the material isn't consumed (and it's super cheap) it's less about paying to cast the spell and more about the quality of the component. Shadow Blade is a superior weapon to any of the mundane swords in the Player's Handbook. I don't see a good reason to ban it.
You still can attack with any focus that also qualifies as a weapon, which under the old rules was still a thing. His "clarification" the more I think about it looks more like nonsense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You still can attack with any focus that also qualifies as a weapon, which under the old rules was still a thing. His "clarification" the more I think about it looks more like nonsense.
You still can attack with any focus that also qualifies as a weapon, which under the old rules was still a thing. His "clarification" the more I think about it looks more like nonsense.
Which is what I’ve said from the beginning.
Really the only thing they accomplished with their "clarification" was to RAW break shadowblade use with the cantrips, which they then contradicted in SA to say "I'd allow it".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Shadow Blade - You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple weapon with which you are proficient. It deals 2d8 psychic damage on a hit and has the finesse, light, and thrown properties (range 20/60). In addition, when you use the sword to attack a target that is in dim light or darkness, you make the attack roll with advantage.
If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn. Thereafter, while the spell persists, you can use a bonus action to cause the sword to reappear in your hand.
At Higher levels. When you cast this spell using a 3rd or 4th-level spell slot, the damage increases to 3d8. When you cast this spell using a 5th or 6th-level spell slot, the damage increases to 4d8. When you cast this spell using a 7th level or higher, the damage increases to 5d8.
Why exactly can't this spell be used with the 2 cantrips? Is it because it doesn't have a base value? The cantrips clearly state that you have to be using a blade you wield. This spell literally states you create a sword that you wield. Since you can cast this spell as a bonus action, there should be no reason why this spell can't combine with the cantrip spells. Where exactly is this errata? If this worked in the past, there should be no reason why it should not still work. If Perkins allows it in his DMing, especially the conventions campaigns he runs, which are canon, how is this not allowed in regular AL play?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Q "What do I need to do to prove that I am as mortal as you?"
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
This spell’s damage increases when you reach certain levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 thunder damage to the target on a hit, and the damage the target takes for moving increases to 2d8. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level (2d8 and 3d8) and again at 17th level (3d8 and 4d8).
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
It has to go with the recent Errata that was released along with the change in the spell printed in Tasha's. The Material needed to cast this spell is a weapon worth 1 sp as crzyhawk stated right above me.
Because of that change, you can no long use shadowblade with Booming or Green Flame Blade. However if you're really worried about the decrease in damage, just cast the Spirit Shroud spell and get that bumped up damage that you crave. It adds a 1d8 to all attacks when an enemy is within 10 feat of you.
So, say i have improvised weapon (because of the tavern brawler feat), does that mean I can use a fireplace poker as a melee weapon and get the use of the cantrip? If this is the case, how does one put value on such an item?
Was this combination exploited previously?? I never saw anyone disagreeing with the use prior to this, so why has it been errataed?
I'm not trying to sound pretentious, I am just curious as to why the change if there was nothing wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Q "What do I need to do to prove that I am as mortal as you?"
As a fireplace poker does not have a written value in the Player's Handbook or any of the other books that I'm aware of, if it has a value over 1 sp would be completely up to the DM on that value or if it would even count as an actual "weapon".
From what I've heard, read, discussed, the reason behind that change had nothing to do with this combo being exploited or anything like that. From one person told me was that they wanted to make it so that you couldn't use an arcane focus to replace the material cost required in this spell.
From what I understand, people were using an arcane focus to cast the spell without making a weapon attack. Not sure why anyone would do that because it would mean you lose the additional damage the weapon would inflict but that is A reason Jeremy Crawford gave.
So then what happens if you had a historic Character in AL that used this combination in past adventures? They just automatically forget how to do this?
I only ask because I had created a character that specifically used this combination in past AL games.
Will I need to specify to any future DM's that this character was created before the errataand should therefore not be subject to this new restriction?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Q "What do I need to do to prove that I am as mortal as you?"
That is something you'll have to discuss with each of your DMs. They're the ones that decide if you'll be allowed to use that particular combo. Jeremy Crawford said he would allow it and if people are being picky the spell Shadow Blade said that it creates a simple melee weapon so look at the weapon chart in the PHB and find which it is so that it has a value.
Other than that you could always just use spirit shroud since that increases your damage just like Shadow blade and has added effects too
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The motivation behind the change was to make it clear a component pouch or focus isn't a substitute for the material components.
Also technically Shadow Blade + blade cantrips is DM-dependent. It doesn't have an official value, but that's not the same as having a value of 0 gp.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Oh.. that makes a lot of sense.. Can't believe I hadn't considerd that before. Thanks for bringing that up ! ..
A wizard hitting a kobold with his component pouch is a pretty cool image though..
that actually makes sense, although it does say that it requires a melee weapon which a component pouch isn't one. Before it said "a weapon"
Here's the original text:
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack’s normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8![]()
thunder damage, and the spell ends.
This spell’s damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8![]()
thunder damage to the target, and the damage the target takes for moving increases to 2d8![]()
. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8![]()
at 11th level and 17th level.
* - (a weapon)
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Honestly that seems like a weird change. If someone really wanted to use their component pouch as an improvised weapon wouldn't that still count? It is a weapon (if improvised) and it does cost more than a silver.
I know it's not really a weapon but hey I wouldn't say no to someone trying to do that. I mean they don't get proficiency to hit so seems like a bit of a waste of an action to likely miss, but if they want to go for it.
Considering an arcane focus can be a wide variety of things.. I imagine they just didn't want that sort of weirdness going... There's also the questino if the arcane focus/component bag can still functino as your arcane focus if you're using it as an improved weapon.. I think the clarificatino of it actually needing to be a weapon makes sense.. It's just a shame that it brings some serious doubt with regards to shadowblade since that apparently wasn't the intention
Yeah, you still needed a weapon with the old wording, but you could've technically cast the spell with a focus and I guess they really wanted to make it extra clear for narrative purposes that the weapon you attack with is also what you're waving around to cast the spell.
In my opinion the combo was never broken and since the material isn't consumed (and it's super cheap) it's less about paying to cast the spell and more about the quality of the component. Shadow Blade is a superior weapon to any of the mundane swords in the Player's Handbook. I don't see a good reason to ban it.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It was exactly what Takai said. As a Bladesinger, you already have a really good AC and with things like Shield, it will be really hard to hit you. By removing yourself from the battlefield, you are increasing the pressure in your allies. It’s also important to mention that Blink is 50/50 chance of effectiveness, you rely a lot on the dice.
Blur is never a really good choice for most of the regular Wizards out there, but it’s fantastic for a Bladesinger due to the force multiplier that is being attacked at disadvantage having a great AC. However, when applicable, PF&G is always better.
Of course it’s a matter of play style and setup. Shadow Blade is usually the way to go or any other game-changer spell like Web, Hold Person and the like, but just to highlight that Blur is even better than Mirror Image for a Bladesinger (or any other good armored Wizard).
You still can attack with any focus that also qualifies as a weapon, which under the old rules was still a thing. His "clarification" the more I think about it looks more like nonsense.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Which is what I’ve said from the beginning.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Really the only thing they accomplished with their "clarification" was to RAW break shadowblade use with the cantrips, which they then contradicted in SA to say "I'd allow it".
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Shadow Blade - You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple weapon with which you are proficient. It deals 2d8 psychic damage on a hit and has the finesse, light, and thrown properties (range 20/60). In addition, when you use the sword to attack a target that is in dim light or darkness, you make the attack roll with advantage.
If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn. Thereafter, while the spell persists, you can use a bonus action to cause the sword to reappear in your hand.
At Higher levels. When you cast this spell using a 3rd or 4th-level spell slot, the damage increases to 3d8. When you cast this spell using a 5th or 6th-level spell slot, the damage increases to 4d8. When you cast this spell using a 7th level or higher, the damage increases to 5d8.
Why exactly can't this spell be used with the 2 cantrips? Is it because it doesn't have a base value? The cantrips clearly state that you have to be using a blade you wield. This spell literally states you create a sword that you wield. Since you can cast this spell as a bonus action, there should be no reason why this spell can't combine with the cantrip spells. Where exactly is this errata? If this worked in the past, there should be no reason why it should not still work. If Perkins allows it in his DMing, especially the conventions campaigns he runs, which are canon, how is this not allowed in regular AL play?
Q "What do I need to do to prove that I am as mortal as you?"
Warf "Die."
Because now the cantrips require a weapon worth 1sp. https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/booming-blade
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
This spell’s damage increases when you reach certain levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 thunder damage to the target on a hit, and the damage the target takes for moving increases to 2d8. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level (2d8 and 3d8) and again at 17th level (3d8 and 4d8).
* - (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It has to go with the recent Errata that was released along with the change in the spell printed in Tasha's. The Material needed to cast this spell is a weapon worth 1 sp as crzyhawk stated right above me.
Because of that change, you can no long use shadowblade with Booming or Green Flame Blade. However if you're really worried about the decrease in damage, just cast the Spirit Shroud spell and get that bumped up damage that you crave. It adds a 1d8 to all attacks when an enemy is within 10 feat of you.
So, say i have improvised weapon (because of the tavern brawler feat), does that mean I can use a fireplace poker as a melee weapon and get the use of the cantrip? If this is the case, how does one put value on such an item?
Was this combination exploited previously?? I never saw anyone disagreeing with the use prior to this, so why has it been errataed?
I'm not trying to sound pretentious, I am just curious as to why the change if there was nothing wrong.
Q "What do I need to do to prove that I am as mortal as you?"
Warf "Die."
As a fireplace poker does not have a written value in the Player's Handbook or any of the other books that I'm aware of, if it has a value over 1 sp would be completely up to the DM on that value or if it would even count as an actual "weapon".
From what I've heard, read, discussed, the reason behind that change had nothing to do with this combo being exploited or anything like that. From one person told me was that they wanted to make it so that you couldn't use an arcane focus to replace the material cost required in this spell.
From what I understand, people were using an arcane focus to cast the spell without making a weapon attack. Not sure why anyone would do that because it would mean you lose the additional damage the weapon would inflict but that is A reason Jeremy Crawford gave.
So then what happens if you had a historic Character in AL that used this combination in past adventures? They just automatically forget how to do this?
I only ask because I had created a character that specifically used this combination in past AL games.
Will I need to specify to any future DM's that this character was created before the errataand should therefore not be subject to this new restriction?
Q "What do I need to do to prove that I am as mortal as you?"
Warf "Die."
That is something you'll have to discuss with each of your DMs. They're the ones that decide if you'll be allowed to use that particular combo. Jeremy Crawford said he would allow it and if people are being picky the spell Shadow Blade said that it creates a simple melee weapon so look at the weapon chart in the PHB and find which it is so that it has a value.
Other than that you could always just use spirit shroud since that increases your damage just like Shadow blade and has added effects too