I can't find anywhere in the rules that even suggests or hints that something created with a spell has absolutely no value whatsoever.
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.
I'm willing to accept that a Shadow Blade might be worthless economically, but the idea that the market price of an item is actually what dictates the applicability of spell components is very silly.
Revivify requires diamonds worth 300 gp, but diamonds are a commodity; is that 300 gp when you buy them? 300 gp current market rates? If somebody breaks into fantasy DeBeers and floods the diamond market, does Revivify stop working? Can you cast Revivify with diamonds that have just been extracted and are not yet appraised? If you travel with diamonds you purchased for 299 gp to somewhere diamonds are slightly more expensive, can you now cast Revivify with those diamonds? What if you travel to a society that doesn't have a market economy at all? Are we meant to believe this kind of spell component arbitrage is the intent of the rules, or are we meant to believe that as long as someone, somewhere in the world would buy your diamonds for 300 gp, Revivify functions as intended?
Here is my core point: spell components with specific prices are foolish, and basing your reading of the rules on "but nobody would buy an illusory sword" is equally foolish.
Revivify requires diamonds worth 300 gp, but diamonds are a commodity; is that 300 gp when you buy them?
D&D generally ignores concepts such as inflation. The price is the amount it would cost to buy it from a 'standard' merchant.
Where's that in the rules?
It's not that it's strictly written in the rules. It's more that the material costs are a game mechanic more than they are lore and nothing talks about changing costs of commodities, therefore there's no rule in place to handle that. This results in items having a set value.
If you really feel like managing an entire economy and inflating the price of diamonds, you'll need to ensure you account for all other materials. Plus changing the value of an important spell component and making it suddenly just not work is a great way to lose your players, as a DM.
As for Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade and Shadow Blade: RAW, no. Shadow Blade doesn't have a material cost. RAI, the cost wasn't implemented to stop this combo and Crawford has gone on record saying he'd allow it. The change adding a cost to the weapon was made so that a focus or component pouch couldn't be used with the spells in place of a weapon.
it actually isn't RAW that shadowblade has no value... this is the sticking point that so many get caught up on
as already explained so many times, shadowblade is a simple melee weapon... all of those listed in the PHB have a minimum of at least 1 sp piece
Which is utterly irrelevant. Shadowblade is not any of the weapons listed in the PHB, it's a unique weapon, and therefore it has the value listed in its description, and if its description does not mention a value, it's valueless.
Revivify requires diamonds worth 300 gp, but diamonds are a commodity; is that 300 gp when you buy them?
D&D generally ignores concepts such as inflation. The price is the amount it would cost to buy it from a 'standard' merchant.
Where's that in the rules?
It's not that it's strictly written in the rules. It's more that the material costs are a game mechanic more than they are lore and nothing talks about changing costs of commodities, therefore there's no rule in place to handle that. This results in items having a set value.
If you really feel like managing an entire economy and inflating the price of diamonds, you'll need to ensure you account for all other materials. Plus changing the value of an important spell component and making it suddenly just not work is a great way to lose your players, as a DM.
As for Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade and Shadow Blade: RAW, no. Shadow Blade doesn't have a material cost. RAI, the cost wasn't implemented to stop this combo and Crawford has gone on record saying he'd allow it. The change adding a cost to the weapon was made so that a focus or component pouch couldn't be used with the spells in place of a weapon.
Agreed on almost all points. It would be absurd to expect the DM to simulate an entire commodities market in order to ensure the correct application of spell component prices. The alternative to that, though, is that the value of any given spell component cannot be based on simulated market price.
If spell component values aren't based on market prices, then "nobody would buy a Shadow Blade" is irrelevant to the question of whether a Shadow Blade has sufficient value to be used as a material component for Booming Blade. A Shadow Blade, like everything else in the game that is not explicitly listed in a book, has an arbitrary value decided by the DM. If you want to say that value is zero, that's fine, but it's just as made up as saying it's 1 SP.
This may seem like a long chain of logic to reach the conclusion, "it's all made up, do what you want", but I think this situation speaks to a larger trend. D&D has gaps in its rules that simply cannot be filled by pure exegesis from the core books. It's fine to make arguments for certain interpretations of the rules, but we should acknowledge that we're doing it and not gloss over the assumptions we make when we do. I see the basic argument "there isn't a rule, therefore it works how I think it does" dressed up as fidelity to RAW way, way too often on these forums.
Revivify requires diamonds worth 300 gp, but diamonds are a commodity; is that 300 gp when you buy them?
D&D generally ignores concepts such as inflation. The price is the amount it would cost to buy it from a 'standard' merchant.
Where's that in the rules?
looking back at 2e, the suggestion is that uncut gems are all but impossible to appraise at a glance. Xanthar's jeweler's tools rules gives us 15 DC to modify a gem's appearance. there exists a chart of worth per carat in an old Dragon Magazine (#8!). given all that, i would assert that 5e DMG random loot tables for gems all reference a standard size of similarly cut gems. so then a 5000gp quartz would be 100x bigger than a 5000gp diamond? where the heck do you sell a 5000gp quartz?? can you "modify" a 299gp diamond into a 300gp diamond in a pinch? can you get more than 300pg worth of diamond dust from a 300gp diamond since they're essentially leftovers from gem cutting? can you critically fail an appraisal check or seek out a desperate buyer to inflate the diamond's price for the spell?? can economics dictate magical returns? can a deception check cheat the gods???
...5e has "enough" rules to cover things and expects us to be reasonable with the rest. and that's really for the best, don't you think? if you find a diamond (or whatever) in game, maybe ask your dm right away if it's going to work for your spell. it might be a quick "yes, that's what i put it there for" and everyone can move on. if instead they say it's complicated, then maybe ask for a quick session zero to determine if your campaign is going to be kind of amusement park visit where you ride the rides or the kind where you learn the intricacies of candlewrights and spend an hour perusing locally sourced soaps while other people ride rides.
edit: oh, well, in the time it took me to write my screed i see you came to a similar place. RAW is important but the gaps should be filled in with purpose and intent. even if the purpose and intent is to skip to the interesting bits.
...This may seem like a long chain of logic to reach the conclusion, "it's all made up, do what you want", but I think this situation speaks to a larger trend. D&D has gaps in its rules that simply cannot be filled by pure exegesis from the core books. It's fine to make arguments for certain interpretations of the rules, but we should acknowledge that we're doing it and not gloss over the assumptions we make when we do. I see the basic argument "there isn't a rule, therefore it works how I think it does" dressed up as fidelity to RAW way, way too often on these forums.
it actually isn't RAW that shadowblade has no value... this is the sticking point that so many get caught up on
as already explained so many times, shadowblade is a simple melee weapon... all of those listed in the PHB have a minimum of at least 1 sp piece
it is also a sword... all of which have a minimum of at least 1 sp piece
it is also a magic weapon... all of which have a minimum of at least 1 sp piece
this spell qualifies over and over and over on each and every front that it has at least a value of 1 sp piece
why do so many still try and lie and say the RAW is that is doesn't have a value of at least 1 sp
even one of the lead designers has said himself it was never meant to not work with the cantrips that require 1 sp piece
...and yet, still you will get people trying to say it is RAW that it doesn't have a value of at least 1 sp
what is so hard to get about this... is it really that people can't admit they are wrong about this, take the loss, and move on?
Spells and abilities do exactly what they say they do. No more, no less. If the spell doesn't assign the Shadow Blade a monetary value, then RAW, it doesn't have one.
If spell component values aren't based on market prices, then "nobody would buy a Shadow Blade" is irrelevant to the question of whether a Shadow Blade has sufficient value to be used as a material component for Booming Blade. A Shadow Blade, like everything else in the game that is not explicitly listed in a book, has an arbitrary value decided by the DM. If you want to say that value is zero, that's fine, but it's just as made up as saying it's 1 SP.
This may seem like a long chain of logic to reach the conclusion, "it's all made up, do what you want", but I think this situation speaks to a larger trend. D&D has gaps in its rules that simply cannot be filled by pure exegesis from the core books. It's fine to make arguments for certain interpretations of the rules, but we should acknowledge that we're doing it and not gloss over the assumptions we make when we do. I see the basic argument "there isn't a rule, therefore it works how I think it does" dressed up as fidelity to RAW way, way too often on these forums.
Similar to what I said above in this post. "There isn't a rule" in the case of a cost of an item unlisted, RAW, means it has no listed value. Not only that, but in the case of a blade that disappears once you drop it, you wouldn't be able to put a stable price on that. After all, the price of a commodity is what a person is willing to pay for it. Nobody would ever buy a blade they can't keep because it disappears in their hands seconds after they hold it.
"There isn't a rule" in the case of a cost of an item unlisted, RAW, means it has no listed value.
Show me where in the rules it says that.
The value of unlisted items is set by the DM. Ergo, Shadow Blade is worth whatever you decide it's worth. Even if you decide "nobody would buy a Shadow Blade so the value is zero", that's still a choice you made. There is no RAW for this. I'm sorry. You have to make a choice.
This is like saying that ruling that a rock is not a creature is a homebrew choice you made because nowhere in the rules does it state that rocks are not a creature. If something requires a value and an item created by magic is not given a value, it doesn't have a value. That is the default way that magic works in this game. You keep insisting that the burden of proof is on us to prove the blade doesn't have a value, but that's just not the way D&D rules work. They do what they say they do and no more.
Just because a magical creation acts like something, it doesn't mean it takes on all of that thing's properties. This logic would break the game in multiple places and is only ever put forth when someone really wants something to work that doesn't actually work.
This is like saying that ruling that a rock is not a creature is a homebrew choice you made because nowhere in the rules does it state that rocks are not a creature. If something requires a value and an item created by magic is not given a value, it doesn't have a value. That is the default way that magic works in this game. You keep insisting that the burden of proof is on us to prove the blade doesn't have a value, but that's just not the way D&D rules work. They do what they say they do and no more.
You know what, I thought this was a stupid argument because of course the rules define what a creature is, but it turns out they don't! Or at least I can't find where they do, if they do. So yeah, actually, that is congruent with my argument and I'm okay with that. If the game doesn't define what a creature is, then whatever you say is a creature is a creature, because games should define the terms they rely on to function. That is an extremely basic game design principle and it is not my fault 5e couldn't be bothered to follow it.
You can say "the rules do what they do and no more", but if the game can't even be arsed to define the difference between a creature and an object, then that can't possibly be true. The rules are full of holes that have to be plugged by outside interpretation. One of the key ways you can tell you're plugging one of these holes is that your logic breaks down to "it works that way because it does".
I'm not responding to your second paragraph because I didn't say that or anything that would imply it.
Ultimately, this is a DM ruling for how they want it to work in their game.
Booming Blade requires a melee weapon worth at least 1sp.
What is a Shadow Blade worth? One easy answer is nothing. The caster casts a spell and the blade appears. It can't be sold so it has no worth.
On the other hand, the shadow blade could very well have a cost. If the wizard bought the spell scroll and paid to scribe it into their spell book or paid some other cost to obtain the spell, then for that character, the shadow blade has a "worth" since it cost them something to obtain it. Without spending the resources, they would not have a shadow blade to wield, so a DM could decide that the shadow blade is worth at least as much as the cost to obtain it.
What is watching a movie worth? Playing a video game? Watching a magic trick or a musical performance? Do these all have no value to the performer or the observer because there is nothing tangible? If a wizard is hired to defend a caravan and uses their shadow blade in that defense is it worth part of what they are being paid? What is the value of a minor illusion or a silent image cast by a performer?
Anyway, all these considerations throw the decision completely into the territory of DM ruling - so if you want to use shadow blade with booming blade, ask your DM, since the rules don't state a shadow blade has no value and don't state it has one - it is up to the DM to decide if it is worth 1sp or not.
------------------
Finally, it might be useful to understand the stupidity of the context this rule was added to fix.
Here is the text of the Component Pouch
"A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description)."
A component pouch EXPLICITLY states that it holds ALL of the material components for ALL of your spells that do not have a specific cost. Booming blade requires a melee weapon as the material component. Some people were literally telling their DMs that, RAW, they could pull any weapon they wanted from their component pouch, at NO cost since the pouch contained all the material components required that do not have a specific cost. In addition, based on RAW, as stupid as this sounds, they were correct. Some DMs were probably convinced by players that the Booming Blade spell was intended to allow the caster to pull any weapon they wanted from the Component Pouch to facilitate the attack since that is what the rules did say.
So they changed it. They added a nominal and minimal value for a weapon to be used with booming blade of 1sp. This prevents the rules allowing the component pouch supplying an infinite collection of weapons to casters of booming blade while at the same time opening up the question about what is the value of a Shadow Blade, or a Flame Blade, or any other actual weapon that happens to have a value less than 1sp.
Oh man I hate this can of worms. But here’s my two SP (which shadow blade is not worth)
Since it has no written price and can’t reasonably be sold, it has no value, therefore doesn’t work with Booming Blade, this is also partially because of balance reasons. However as a DM, if I had a player who wasn’t misusing it I’d be chill, but RAW and RAI disagree.
Oh man I hate this can of worms. But here’s my two SP (which shadow blade is not worth)
Since it has no written price and can’t reasonably be sold, it has no value, therefore doesn’t work with Booming Blade, this is also partially because of balance reasons. However as a DM, if I had a player who wasn’t misusing it I’d be chill, but RAW and RAI disagree.
If you believe that the words of the designers are representative of RAI, then the constraint on Booming Blade was not intended to affect situations like Shadow Blade.
"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."
As DM, I'd totally let the combo work. Shadow Blade creates a simple melee weapon, and if another rule cares about that weapon's value, I'd pick a value from the list of simple melee weapons in the Player's Handbook and apply that value ad hoc to the shadowy blade."
JCs comments in these threads indicate their take as a DM and designer but acknowledge that RAW can be read otherwise but it's not how they run it. JC also points out that a warlock pact weapon although created from thin air, must be chosen from the list in the PHB and so each of those should be considered to have a listed value and would work with booming blade RAW.
There are more tweets by JC and discussions out there.
Basically, JC defends the change because it prevents the component pouch rule from providing the weapons for free and acknowledges that some combos like Shadow Blade no longer work but that as a DM he'd allow it in his game.
-----
So, I'm not sure that the change was intended to block Shadow Blade RAI (it really isn't that powerful a combination to be honest) but I agree with you regarding RAW, the easiest conclusion is that it doesn't work and a DM has to jump through some hoops if they want to assign a "value" to a Shadow Blade. The easier solution for the DM is to just rule it as allowed in their game if that is what they want.
Seriously, if the problem was component pouches, they should have just errata's component pouches, because it's by no means the only spell where the problematic interpretation of component pouches is an issue (for example, shillelagh). Or they could have just removed the M component from booming blade entirely.
Seriously, if the problem was component pouches, they should have just errata's component pouches, because it's by no means the only spell where the problematic interpretation of component pouches is an issue (for example, shillelagh). Or they could have just removed the M component from booming blade entirely.
Agreed. It was a poorly-executed errata. The spells could have just been errata'd to include a line that a component pouch or focus can't be used in place of the material component.
Seriously, if the problem was component pouches, they should have just errata's component pouches, because it's by no means the only spell where the problematic interpretation of component pouches is an issue (for example, shillelagh). Or they could have just removed the M component from booming blade entirely.
Agreed. It was a poorly-executed errata. The spells could have just been errata'd to include a line that a component pouch or focus can't be used in place of the material component.
The clean fix is
Component Pouch. A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell’s description or elsewhere).
Yay, no pulling items of value out of a component pouch.
You absolutely can. If you asked me hey does a second level spell cost more than 1 sp? I would tell you abso-friggin-lutely. If your DM says it doesn't have a cost tied to the Shadow Blade ask them where you can find other magic swords for less than 1 sp. Ask them where do you pick up 2nd level spell scrolls for less than 1 sp. If you made that spell into a scroll as a wizard that has a tangible price to it, therefore since a spell scroll has a cost, a spell slot would also be included in that. It is a SOLID weapon, it is tangible. The worth of it already exists at such a higher state. If anyone says no to letting you use it, they are cowards and are not letting you play the game it was meant to be played.
It seems silly to me to not allow BB or GFB to work with a Shadow Blade. I currently allow it and would have allowed it even if JC had not made multiple comments on the matter.
Again this is the beauty of D&D every DM can run their table how they want - nobody is calling the rules police on home games.
Be consistent throughout the campaign and remember the object is for everyone to have fun. - If everyone has fun (including the DM) mission accomplished.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm willing to accept that a Shadow Blade might be worthless economically, but the idea that the market price of an item is actually what dictates the applicability of spell components is very silly.
Revivify requires diamonds worth 300 gp, but diamonds are a commodity; is that 300 gp when you buy them? 300 gp current market rates? If somebody breaks into fantasy DeBeers and floods the diamond market, does Revivify stop working? Can you cast Revivify with diamonds that have just been extracted and are not yet appraised? If you travel with diamonds you purchased for 299 gp to somewhere diamonds are slightly more expensive, can you now cast Revivify with those diamonds? What if you travel to a society that doesn't have a market economy at all? Are we meant to believe this kind of spell component arbitrage is the intent of the rules, or are we meant to believe that as long as someone, somewhere in the world would buy your diamonds for 300 gp, Revivify functions as intended?
Here is my core point: spell components with specific prices are foolish, and basing your reading of the rules on "but nobody would buy an illusory sword" is equally foolish.
D&D generally ignores concepts such as inflation. The price is the amount it would cost to buy it from a 'standard' merchant.
Where's that in the rules?
It's not that it's strictly written in the rules. It's more that the material costs are a game mechanic more than they are lore and nothing talks about changing costs of commodities, therefore there's no rule in place to handle that. This results in items having a set value.
If you really feel like managing an entire economy and inflating the price of diamonds, you'll need to ensure you account for all other materials. Plus changing the value of an important spell component and making it suddenly just not work is a great way to lose your players, as a DM.
As for Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade and Shadow Blade: RAW, no. Shadow Blade doesn't have a material cost. RAI, the cost wasn't implemented to stop this combo and Crawford has gone on record saying he'd allow it. The change adding a cost to the weapon was made so that a focus or component pouch couldn't be used with the spells in place of a weapon.
Which is utterly irrelevant. Shadowblade is not any of the weapons listed in the PHB, it's a unique weapon, and therefore it has the value listed in its description, and if its description does not mention a value, it's valueless.
Agreed on almost all points. It would be absurd to expect the DM to simulate an entire commodities market in order to ensure the correct application of spell component prices. The alternative to that, though, is that the value of any given spell component cannot be based on simulated market price.
If spell component values aren't based on market prices, then "nobody would buy a Shadow Blade" is irrelevant to the question of whether a Shadow Blade has sufficient value to be used as a material component for Booming Blade. A Shadow Blade, like everything else in the game that is not explicitly listed in a book, has an arbitrary value decided by the DM. If you want to say that value is zero, that's fine, but it's just as made up as saying it's 1 SP.
This may seem like a long chain of logic to reach the conclusion, "it's all made up, do what you want", but I think this situation speaks to a larger trend. D&D has gaps in its rules that simply cannot be filled by pure exegesis from the core books. It's fine to make arguments for certain interpretations of the rules, but we should acknowledge that we're doing it and not gloss over the assumptions we make when we do. I see the basic argument "there isn't a rule, therefore it works how I think it does" dressed up as fidelity to RAW way, way too often on these forums.
looking back at 2e, the suggestion is that uncut gems are all but impossible to appraise at a glance. Xanthar's jeweler's tools rules gives us 15 DC to modify a gem's appearance. there exists a chart of worth per carat in an old Dragon Magazine (#8!). given all that, i would assert that 5e DMG random loot tables for gems all reference a standard size of similarly cut gems. so then a 5000gp quartz would be 100x bigger than a 5000gp diamond? where the heck do you sell a 5000gp quartz?? can you "modify" a 299gp diamond into a 300gp diamond in a pinch? can you get more than 300pg worth of diamond dust from a 300gp diamond since they're essentially leftovers from gem cutting? can you critically fail an appraisal check or seek out a desperate buyer to inflate the diamond's price for the spell?? can economics dictate magical returns? can a deception check cheat the gods???
...5e has "enough" rules to cover things and expects us to be reasonable with the rest. and that's really for the best, don't you think? if you find a diamond (or whatever) in game, maybe ask your dm right away if it's going to work for your spell. it might be a quick "yes, that's what i put it there for" and everyone can move on. if instead they say it's complicated, then maybe ask for a quick session zero to determine if your campaign is going to be kind of amusement park visit where you ride the rides or the kind where you learn the intricacies of candlewrights and spend an hour perusing locally sourced soaps while other people ride rides.
edit: oh, well, in the time it took me to write my screed i see you came to a similar place. RAW is important but the gaps should be filled in with purpose and intent. even if the purpose and intent is to skip to the interesting bits.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Spells and abilities do exactly what they say they do. No more, no less. If the spell doesn't assign the Shadow Blade a monetary value, then RAW, it doesn't have one.
Similar to what I said above in this post. "There isn't a rule" in the case of a cost of an item unlisted, RAW, means it has no listed value. Not only that, but in the case of a blade that disappears once you drop it, you wouldn't be able to put a stable price on that. After all, the price of a commodity is what a person is willing to pay for it. Nobody would ever buy a blade they can't keep because it disappears in their hands seconds after they hold it.
Show me where in the rules it says that.
The value of unlisted items is set by the DM. Ergo, Shadow Blade is worth whatever you decide it's worth. Even if you decide "nobody would buy a Shadow Blade so the value is zero", that's still a choice you made. There is no RAW for this. I'm sorry. You have to make a choice.
This is like saying that ruling that a rock is not a creature is a homebrew choice you made because nowhere in the rules does it state that rocks are not a creature. If something requires a value and an item created by magic is not given a value, it doesn't have a value. That is the default way that magic works in this game. You keep insisting that the burden of proof is on us to prove the blade doesn't have a value, but that's just not the way D&D rules work. They do what they say they do and no more.
Just because a magical creation acts like something, it doesn't mean it takes on all of that thing's properties. This logic would break the game in multiple places and is only ever put forth when someone really wants something to work that doesn't actually work.
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
You know what, I thought this was a stupid argument because of course the rules define what a creature is, but it turns out they don't! Or at least I can't find where they do, if they do. So yeah, actually, that is congruent with my argument and I'm okay with that. If the game doesn't define what a creature is, then whatever you say is a creature is a creature, because games should define the terms they rely on to function. That is an extremely basic game design principle and it is not my fault 5e couldn't be bothered to follow it.
You can say "the rules do what they do and no more", but if the game can't even be arsed to define the difference between a creature and an object, then that can't possibly be true. The rules are full of holes that have to be plugged by outside interpretation. One of the key ways you can tell you're plugging one of these holes is that your logic breaks down to "it works that way because it does".
I'm not responding to your second paragraph because I didn't say that or anything that would imply it.
Ultimately, this is a DM ruling for how they want it to work in their game.
Booming Blade requires a melee weapon worth at least 1sp.
What is a Shadow Blade worth? One easy answer is nothing. The caster casts a spell and the blade appears. It can't be sold so it has no worth.
On the other hand, the shadow blade could very well have a cost. If the wizard bought the spell scroll and paid to scribe it into their spell book or paid some other cost to obtain the spell, then for that character, the shadow blade has a "worth" since it cost them something to obtain it. Without spending the resources, they would not have a shadow blade to wield, so a DM could decide that the shadow blade is worth at least as much as the cost to obtain it.
What is watching a movie worth? Playing a video game? Watching a magic trick or a musical performance? Do these all have no value to the performer or the observer because there is nothing tangible? If a wizard is hired to defend a caravan and uses their shadow blade in that defense is it worth part of what they are being paid? What is the value of a minor illusion or a silent image cast by a performer?
Anyway, all these considerations throw the decision completely into the territory of DM ruling - so if you want to use shadow blade with booming blade, ask your DM, since the rules don't state a shadow blade has no value and don't state it has one - it is up to the DM to decide if it is worth 1sp or not.
------------------
Finally, it might be useful to understand the stupidity of the context this rule was added to fix.
Here is the text of the Component Pouch
"A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell's description)."
A component pouch EXPLICITLY states that it holds ALL of the material components for ALL of your spells that do not have a specific cost. Booming blade requires a melee weapon as the material component. Some people were literally telling their DMs that, RAW, they could pull any weapon they wanted from their component pouch, at NO cost since the pouch contained all the material components required that do not have a specific cost. In addition, based on RAW, as stupid as this sounds, they were correct. Some DMs were probably convinced by players that the Booming Blade spell was intended to allow the caster to pull any weapon they wanted from the Component Pouch to facilitate the attack since that is what the rules did say.
So they changed it. They added a nominal and minimal value for a weapon to be used with booming blade of 1sp. This prevents the rules allowing the component pouch supplying an infinite collection of weapons to casters of booming blade while at the same time opening up the question about what is the value of a Shadow Blade, or a Flame Blade, or any other actual weapon that happens to have a value less than 1sp.
Oh man I hate this can of worms. But here’s my two SP (which shadow blade is not worth)
Since it has no written price and can’t reasonably be sold, it has no value, therefore doesn’t work with Booming Blade, this is also partially because of balance reasons.
However as a DM, if I had a player who wasn’t misusing it I’d be chill, but RAW and RAI disagree.
If you believe that the words of the designers are representative of RAI, then the constraint on Booming Blade was not intended to affect situations like Shadow Blade.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1327132714013782017?lang=en
"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."
https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-the-monetary-value-of-the-component-now-negate-being-able-to-use-your-pact-of-the-blade-weapon-or-shadow-blade-in-conjunction-with-booming-blade/
As DM, I'd totally let the combo work. Shadow Blade creates a simple melee weapon, and if another rule cares about that weapon's value, I'd pick a value from the list of simple melee weapons in the Player's Handbook and apply that value ad hoc to the shadowy blade."
JCs comments in these threads indicate their take as a DM and designer but acknowledge that RAW can be read otherwise but it's not how they run it. JC also points out that a warlock pact weapon although created from thin air, must be chosen from the list in the PHB and so each of those should be considered to have a listed value and would work with booming blade RAW.
There are more tweets by JC and discussions out there.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/what-is-the-intention-between-booming-green-flame-blades-requiring-a-weapon-with-a-value-of-at-least-1sp-when-no-weapon-has-a-value-below-1sp/
Basically, JC defends the change because it prevents the component pouch rule from providing the weapons for free and acknowledges that some combos like Shadow Blade no longer work but that as a DM he'd allow it in his game.
-----
So, I'm not sure that the change was intended to block Shadow Blade RAI (it really isn't that powerful a combination to be honest) but I agree with you regarding RAW, the easiest conclusion is that it doesn't work and a DM has to jump through some hoops if they want to assign a "value" to a Shadow Blade. The easier solution for the DM is to just rule it as allowed in their game if that is what they want.
Seriously, if the problem was component pouches, they should have just errata's component pouches, because it's by no means the only spell where the problematic interpretation of component pouches is an issue (for example, shillelagh). Or they could have just removed the M component from booming blade entirely.
Agreed. It was a poorly-executed errata. The spells could have just been errata'd to include a line that a component pouch or focus can't be used in place of the material component.
The clean fix is
Yay, no pulling items of value out of a component pouch.
You absolutely can. If you asked me hey does a second level spell cost more than 1 sp? I would tell you abso-friggin-lutely. If your DM says it doesn't have a cost tied to the Shadow Blade ask them where you can find other magic swords for less than 1 sp. Ask them where do you pick up 2nd level spell scrolls for less than 1 sp. If you made that spell into a scroll as a wizard that has a tangible price to it, therefore since a spell scroll has a cost, a spell slot would also be included in that. It is a SOLID weapon, it is tangible. The worth of it already exists at such a higher state. If anyone says no to letting you use it, they are cowards and are not letting you play the game it was meant to be played.
Hey to each their own right -
It seems silly to me to not allow BB or GFB to work with a Shadow Blade. I currently allow it and would have allowed it even if JC had not made multiple comments on the matter.
Again this is the beauty of D&D every DM can run their table how they want - nobody is calling the rules police on home games.
Be consistent throughout the campaign and remember the object is for everyone to have fun. - If everyone has fun (including the DM) mission accomplished.