The 1sp required was to insure you were using a weapon and not to restrict shadow blade or green flame blade .
So as long as your using the weapon is fine.
The change was to fix other combos and limiting the shadow blade was not intended.
Jeremy Cra...
@JeremyEC... • Nov 13, 2020 ..
If a D&D spell's material component lacks a monetary value and isn't consumed, you don't need that component; you could substitute a component pouch, for instance.
Booming/Green-Flame Blade need a weapon with a monetary value because they require an actual weapon. #DnD
Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
This change has nothing to do with prohibiting or allowing Shadow Blade to combine with Booming/Green-Flame Blade. It's about fixing those two cantrips. As DM, I'd allow those them to combo, since I make liberal use of the rule on improvised weapons.
Yeah, the 1 sp limitation always felt like it was tacked on to prevent you Booming Blade someone with a spoon or something.
That said, I'd be all for dropping the cost limiter altogether and make room for improvised weapon or unarmed blade cantrips. Since knuckle-smiting is a thing now, can we also have Green Flame Suplex and Booming Barstool? That'd be great, thanks! Our arcane luchador buddies need some love.
If a D&D spell's material component lacks a monetary value and isn't consumed, you don't need that component; you could substitute a component pouch, for instance.
Booming/Green-Flame Blade need a weapon with a monetary value because they require an actual weapon. #DnD
That argument is... complete nonsense. First of all, the "melee weapon worth at least 1 sp" doesn't prevent using a component pouch anyway, since a component pouch is capable of being used as an improvised melee weapon and is worth at least 1 sp. Secondly, the spell requires you to use the material component as the weapon in the attack, so there's no actual exploit in the first place because if it's not a weapon you can't attack with it. The only mechanical effect it actually has is preventing using it with created weapons.
If a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before casting and a component pouch is not a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp.
If a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before casting and a component pouch is not a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp.
Yes it is. It's worth 25 gp (which is well in excess of 1 sp) and is usable as an improvised melee weapon (and is thus a melee weapon).
If a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before casting and a component pouch is not a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp.
Yes it is. It's worth 25 gp (which is well in excess of 1 sp) and is usable as an improvised melee weapon (and is thus a melee weapon).
That’s a pretty slippery argument. You can whack someone with a longbow, so I guess it’s also a melee weapon by your definition.
If a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before casting and a component pouch is not a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp.
Yes it is. It's worth 25 gp (which is well in excess of 1 sp) and is usable as an improvised melee weapon (and is thus a melee weapon).
That’s a pretty slippery argument. You can whack someone with a longbow, so I guess it’s also a melee weapon by your definition.
I mean yes it would be considered a weapon by the way jermy is explaining it .
so would a chair leg if the dm believes it’s a club .
if the DM rules it a real weapon GFB and BB works .
but the hole chair would not.
you need a real weapon in your hand to use BB or GFB I believe is the intention .
I do believe 1sp was dumb for this.
saying you must be holding a weapon to cast BB or GFB is enough .
then the dm can say what is and is not a true weapon .
The fact that you have to use the same weapon to make the attack as you did to cast the spell makes any theoretical concerns about casting the spell with a focus moot; there is simply nothing to fix there. My assumption is that Jeremy Crawford wasn't responsible for the change in the first place and is talking through his hat.
If a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before casting and a component pouch is not a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp.
Yes it is. It's worth 25 gp (which is well in excess of 1 sp) and is usable as an improvised melee weapon (and is thus a melee weapon).
A component pouch isn't listed in the Melee Weapon table but in the Item table instead.
A component pouch is an object and not an improvised weapon until you attack with it as an improvised weapon and you aren't doing so when casting a spell.
If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands
In the end, a JC tweet that isn't followed up with something from sage advice doesn't actually mean anything. SAC is silent on the issue.
I disagree. In my opinion, if you are not running an organized/official league or something that would require definitive answers, then you don't need a 100% official source - you need rules that work as intended.
If the Lead Designer of the game in question says it wasn't the new rule's intention to remove the combination of BB and Shadow Blade and that they would allow it, then that does mean a lot to many (if not most) players.
On the internet, DnD 5e easily becomes a question of the absolute right/wrong in terms of rules. Personally I think that somewhat ruins the intent of tabletop RPGs itself and further turns DnD 5e into a highly standardized board game. That may be a fun activity for some to theorize the rules, so I don't judge that.
You saying Crawford's unofficial statements don't mean anything, however, comes from a very specific perspective on "meaning".
I pointed out that Crawford ruling, because to many DMs and players out there, myself included, Crawford's rulings are a simple and effective way to put an end to long-lasting debates that have run their course of usefulness. :)
Generally my rule of thumb is: If there is no reason no disallow something, the approve it. And if Crawford's interpretation is in favor of it, then as a household DM I definitely see no reason to disallow it.
Quite a few times there have been rules issues in-game. Not a matter of players arguing with the DM, but the DM wondering too.
Our typical rule solving hierarchy:
Can the DM solve it with a quick off the top ruling or does it affect the game in the long run and possible lead to further question/problems? This is the most dynamic way if possible.
If it's a long term ruling and not just a situational thing easily resolved with a DM decision, then we first we google the issue to see if some beautiful soul has made a summary of all the rules regarding it, in hopes for a definitive answer. If that doesn't work, our next question is: Has Crawford said something about it. If yes, then problem usually solved. :P
If JC says it can be used, then you probably can use it without breaking the game. And that's all you need to know when playing at home. Has worked out remarkably well for us so far.
Of course the DM makes the final call, but I do encourage new DMs to allow things that have been verified by JC, even in a Twitter post. Because usually it's at least a case of "good enough" for any household purposes.
If a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before casting and a component pouch is not a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp.
Yes it is. It's worth 25 gp (which is well in excess of 1 sp) and is usable as an improvised melee weapon (and is thus a melee weapon).
However, without the 1sp constraint, the rules state that a component pouch can provide any material component for a spell that does not have a listed cost. Without the listed cost, RAW, you could pull any weapon you wanted to use with booming blade out of your component pouch (of holding) since the material component didn't list a cost. I think the spell could have been fixed with other wording changes than the 1sp requirement but c'est la vie.
However, without the 1sp constraint, the rules state that a component pouch can provide any material component for a spell that does not have a listed cost.
Any specific weapon does have a listed cost. You can pull any weapon that has a cost of zero out of the component pouch.
In the end, a JC tweet that isn't followed up with something from sage advice doesn't actually mean anything. SAC is silent on the issue.
I disagree. In my opinion, if you are not running an organized/official league or something that would require definitive answers, then you don't need a 100% official source - you need rules that work as intended.
If the Lead Designer of the game in question says it wasn't the new rule's intention to remove the combination of BB and Shadow Blade and that they would allow it, then that does mean a lot to many (if not most) players.
On the internet, DnD 5e easily becomes a question of the absolute right/wrong in terms of rules. Personally I think that somewhat ruins the intent of tabletop RPGs itself and further turns DnD 5e into a highly standardized board game. That may be a fun activity for some to theorize the rules, so I don't judge that.
You saying Crawford's unofficial statements don't mean anything, however, comes from a very specific perspective on "meaning".
I pointed out that Crawford ruling, because to many DMs and players out there, myself included, Crawford's rulings are a simple and effective way to put an end to long-lasting debates that have run their course of usefulness. :)
Generally my rule of thumb is: If there is no reason no disallow something, the approve it. And if Crawford's interpretation is in favor of it, then as a household DM I definitely see no reason to disallow it.
Quite a few times there have been rules issues in-game. Not a matter of players arguing with the DM, but the DM wondering too.
Our typical rule solving hierarchy:
Can the DM solve it with a quick off the top ruling or does it affect the game in the long run and possible lead to further question/problems? This is the most dynamic way if possible.
If it's a long term ruling and not just a situational thing easily resolved with a DM decision, then we first we google the issue to see if some beautiful soul has made a summary of all the rules regarding it, in hopes for a definitive answer. If that doesn't work, our next question is: Has Crawford said something about it. If yes, then problem usually solved. :P
If JC says it can be used, then you probably can use it without breaking the game. And that's all you need to know when playing at home. Has worked out remarkably well for us so far.
Of course the DM makes the final call, but I do encourage new DMs to allow things that have been verified by JC, even in a Twitter post. Because usually it's at least a case of "good enough" for any household purposes.
A lot of JC's "rulings" are comments on how he might run it in his game. They aren't necessarily the game designer looking at the possible interactions and the existing rules and clarifying how it was intended to be played. The latter is the role of the Sage Advice Compendium and there is a lot of comments that JC has made that do not make it to the Sage Advice Compendium.
Some examples of this would be JC's comments on the Shield Master feat and when the bonus action shove can be taken. He first answered how he might run it in his game, then changed his ruling to an interpretation consistent with the rules as written. This isn't the only example.
Personally, I do think that shadow blade should work with booming blade and I'd allow it in my games - but RAW it doesn't work unfortunately.
In the case of not ignoring the silver piece (which honestly I would allow), i'd rule that if you use a spellcasting focus that's worth a silver piece or more, then you can use booming blade.
Although, i'm pretty sure a spell scroll of Shadow Blade is worth more then a silver, so the spell should be valid for booming blade in my book.
Well the description of the weapon created with the spell says it is a sword and counts as a simple melee weapon.
All simple melee weapons are worth 1 sp or more.
Incorrect. All simple melee weapons that are listed in the weapons section of the PHB are worth 1 sp or more, but nothing says that's an exclusive list, and there are a number of weapons that have no value, including certain natural weapons (e.g. vampire bite on a dhampir), magically created weapons (pact weapon, shadow blade, etc), and improvised weapons.
That is probably why the booming blade and green flame blade cantrips were changed so that the material component now requires a weapon worth at least 1 sp.
That being said there is an argument to be made that it does work:
In the DMG somewhere under the treasure/magic items/buying and selling headings it says:
Selling magic items is difficult in most D&D worlds primarily because of the challenge of finding a buyer. Plenty of people might like to have a magic sword, but few of them can afford it.
This would suggest that magic items have value. Even a common magic item like a potion of healing is listed under the equipment items list as having a cost of 50gp.
I mention this because the Shadow Blade spell states that it is a magic weapon. As such it does have value and should at least meet the 1sp requirement.
Shadow Blade dissipates if the caster is not holding on to it. It's literally worthless unless you're RPing a crypto-bro and marketing it as an NFT.
imma make that character now
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pronouns: Any/All
About Me: Godless monster in human form bent on extending their natural life to unnatural extremes /general of the goose horde /Moderator of Vinstreb School for the Gifted /holder of the evil storyteller badge of no honor /king of madness /The FBI/ The Archmage of I CAST...!
Alignment: Lawful Evil
Fun Fact: i gain more power the more you post on my forum threads. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The 1sp required was to insure you were using a weapon and not to restrict shadow blade or green flame blade .
So as long as your using the weapon is fine.
The change was to fix other combos and limiting the shadow blade was not intended.
Jeremy Cra...
@JeremyEC... • Nov 13, 2020 ..
If a D&D spell's material component lacks a monetary value and isn't consumed, you don't need that component; you could substitute a component pouch, for instance.
Booming/Green-Flame Blade need a weapon with a monetary value because they require an actual weapon. #DnD
Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
This change has nothing to do with prohibiting or allowing Shadow Blade to combine with Booming/Green-Flame Blade. It's about fixing those two cantrips. As DM, I'd allow those them to combo, since I make liberal use of the rule on improvised weapons.
Yeah, the 1 sp limitation always felt like it was tacked on to prevent you Booming Blade someone with a spoon or something.
That said, I'd be all for dropping the cost limiter altogether and make room for improvised weapon or unarmed blade cantrips. Since knuckle-smiting is a thing now, can we also have Green Flame Suplex and Booming Barstool? That'd be great, thanks! Our arcane luchador buddies need some love.
That argument is... complete nonsense. First of all, the "melee weapon worth at least 1 sp" doesn't prevent using a component pouch anyway, since a component pouch is capable of being used as an improvised melee weapon and is worth at least 1 sp. Secondly, the spell requires you to use the material component as the weapon in the attack, so there's no actual exploit in the first place because if it's not a weapon you can't attack with it. The only mechanical effect it actually has is preventing using it with created weapons.
Yes it is. It's worth 25 gp (which is well in excess of 1 sp) and is usable as an improvised melee weapon (and is thus a melee weapon).
Literally anything can be an improvised melee weapon, so why make the distinction at all if that logic works?
Along the same lines, if something has to be used as an improvised weapon, isn't it by definition not an actual weapon?
We're back to casting BB with a spoon, as long as it's a golden spoon - wooden ones are too cheap.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
To prevent using it with spell effects.
That’s a pretty slippery argument. You can whack someone with a longbow, so I guess it’s also a melee weapon by your definition.
I mean yes it would be considered a weapon by the way jermy is explaining it .
so would a chair leg if the dm believes it’s a club .
if the DM rules it a real weapon GFB and BB works .
but the hole chair would not.
you need a real weapon in your hand to use BB or GFB I believe is the intention .
I do believe 1sp was dumb for this.
saying you must be holding a weapon to cast BB or GFB is enough .
then the dm can say what is and is not a true weapon .
The fact that you have to use the same weapon to make the attack as you did to cast the spell makes any theoretical concerns about casting the spell with a focus moot; there is simply nothing to fix there. My assumption is that Jeremy Crawford wasn't responsible for the change in the first place and is talking through his hat.
A component pouch isn't listed in the Melee Weapon table but in the Item table instead.
A component pouch is an object and not an improvised weapon until you attack with it as an improvised weapon and you aren't doing so when casting a spell.
If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell.
To my understanding, as per some Crawford post I cba to look up, it was never RAI to prevent BB and Shadow Blade combo.
But RAW it's generally interpreted as no.
That said, I do allow it. Basically it means you can't use it with some twig you come across.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
In the end, a JC tweet that isn't followed up with something from sage advice doesn't actually mean anything. SAC is silent on the issue.
I disagree. In my opinion, if you are not running an organized/official league or something that would require definitive answers, then you don't need a 100% official source - you need rules that work as intended.
If the Lead Designer of the game in question says it wasn't the new rule's intention to remove the combination of BB and Shadow Blade and that they would allow it, then that does mean a lot to many (if not most) players.
On the internet, DnD 5e easily becomes a question of the absolute right/wrong in terms of rules. Personally I think that somewhat ruins the intent of tabletop RPGs itself and further turns DnD 5e into a highly standardized board game. That may be a fun activity for some to theorize the rules, so I don't judge that.
You saying Crawford's unofficial statements don't mean anything, however, comes from a very specific perspective on "meaning".
I pointed out that Crawford ruling, because to many DMs and players out there, myself included, Crawford's rulings are a simple and effective way to put an end to long-lasting debates that have run their course of usefulness. :)
Generally my rule of thumb is: If there is no reason no disallow something, the approve it. And if Crawford's interpretation is in favor of it, then as a household DM I definitely see no reason to disallow it.
Quite a few times there have been rules issues in-game. Not a matter of players arguing with the DM, but the DM wondering too.
Our typical rule solving hierarchy:
Can the DM solve it with a quick off the top ruling or does it affect the game in the long run and possible lead to further question/problems? This is the most dynamic way if possible.
If it's a long term ruling and not just a situational thing easily resolved with a DM decision, then we first we google the issue to see if some beautiful soul has made a summary of all the rules regarding it, in hopes for a definitive answer. If that doesn't work, our next question is: Has Crawford said something about it. If yes, then problem usually solved. :P
If JC says it can be used, then you probably can use it without breaking the game. And that's all you need to know when playing at home. Has worked out remarkably well for us so far.
Of course the DM makes the final call, but I do encourage new DMs to allow things that have been verified by JC, even in a Twitter post. Because usually it's at least a case of "good enough" for any household purposes.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
However, without the 1sp constraint, the rules state that a component pouch can provide any material component for a spell that does not have a listed cost. Without the listed cost, RAW, you could pull any weapon you wanted to use with booming blade out of your component pouch (of holding) since the material component didn't list a cost. I think the spell could have been fixed with other wording changes than the 1sp requirement but c'est la vie.
Any specific weapon does have a listed cost. You can pull any weapon that has a cost of zero out of the component pouch.
A lot of JC's "rulings" are comments on how he might run it in his game. They aren't necessarily the game designer looking at the possible interactions and the existing rules and clarifying how it was intended to be played. The latter is the role of the Sage Advice Compendium and there is a lot of comments that JC has made that do not make it to the Sage Advice Compendium.
Some examples of this would be JC's comments on the Shield Master feat and when the bonus action shove can be taken. He first answered how he might run it in his game, then changed his ruling to an interpretation consistent with the rules as written. This isn't the only example.
Personally, I do think that shadow blade should work with booming blade and I'd allow it in my games - but RAW it doesn't work unfortunately.
In the case of not ignoring the silver piece (which honestly I would allow), i'd rule that if you use a spellcasting focus that's worth a silver piece or more, then you can use booming blade.
Although, i'm pretty sure a spell scroll of Shadow Blade is worth more then a silver, so the spell should be valid for booming blade in my book.
Incorrect. All simple melee weapons that are listed in the weapons section of the PHB are worth 1 sp or more, but nothing says that's an exclusive list, and there are a number of weapons that have no value, including certain natural weapons (e.g. vampire bite on a dhampir), magically created weapons (pact weapon, shadow blade, etc), and improvised weapons.
The value of an item is the market price. An item that vanishes the moment it leaves the creator's hand can't be sold and therefore has no value.
imma make that character now
Pronouns: Any/All
About Me: Godless monster in human form bent on extending their natural life to unnatural extremes /general of the goose horde /Moderator of Vinstreb School for the Gifted /holder of the evil storyteller badge of no honor /king of madness /The FBI/ The Archmage of I CAST...!
Alignment: Lawful Evil
Fun Fact: i gain more power the more you post on my forum threads. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!