I thought the reason the material added a cost was so people couldn't poke targets with a wand to cast booming blade (not that any literate DM who actually read the spell would have allowed that anyway).
I'm pretty sure there is a tweet out there where Crawford said that he would allow BB and GFB with shadow blade in his own games. So I don't think they added costs just for that.
Though in end preventing conjured and natural weapons from being used is the only effect of the change. That and now causing people to question if magic weapons work. 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
The fact remains that minor conjuration hands you a working physical real Longsword, which glows with magic, but which JC would tell you is WORTHLESS (not even worth 1 cp) while it exists. An item so metaphysically compromised that no matter what value a person may assign to it or it’s physical similarity to other swords, it fundamentally refuses to interact with the weave of magic for spells requiring a sword.
If he’s wrong about that (and I have no problem accepting he is, since there’s no rule text calling that conjured sword worthless, and it’s a shockingly far reaching ruling to make with no support), then fine… no reason to assume magic is worthless, and a longsword is a longsword is a longseord. But if he’s right that it’s worthless, it’s unclear to see the bright line of why it’s worthless and the +1 sword isn’t. I can see it being worth LESS than the +1 sword, and even less than a real sword… but WORTHLESS is something else altogether. From the perspective of the PHB listing item costs, a +1 sword has as much or more in common with a conjured one (magic, no listed cost) than it has with a real one.
Highlight is my emphasis. Let's say you conjure your Shadow Blade, and try to sell it at your local market. Let's imagine that you manage to sell this magical (insert weapon type here) for somewhere in the ballpark of 100-500 GP. Your customer gladly hands over their coin purse, you relinquish the item to their control and ...... well - POOF! "It dissipates at the end of the turn." Then, the unlucky mark customer has the annoying problem of trying to get the purchase price back from you. To me, it makes complete sense to make the "item" worthless. This doesn't make it "wrong" kind of magic, it makes it different. If you spend the time, effort and energy to craft a physical item (albeit in a game relying on suspension of disbelief) and then further allocate time, mystical and magical energies, components, spell slots and potentially exhaustion into the enchanting of said physical item. That makes it "worth" something. The crafters effort, not the weave that "creates" it.
Is your argument: that if an item that isn't completely indestructible and will exist unchanged for all of existence, a nexus of entropy-warded matter incapable of decay or erosion, incapable of withering or fading from time itself... is required for something to have a monetary value?
Normal tools and equipment, especially consumables, have no value or worth because they might not exist soon??
Let's imagine that you manage to sell this magical (potion) for somewhere in the ballpark of 100-500 GP. Your customer gladly hands over their coin purse, you relinquish the item to their control and ...... well - POOF! "They drink it and now it is gone." Then, the unlucky mark customer has the annoying problem of trying to get the purchase price back from you. To me, it makes complete sense to make the "item" worthless.
Dang potion vendors selling people items that will soon enough not exist!! Scammers, all of them!
...
You get why this is a silly example and a silly line of argument right?
How long something exists will of course have an impact on its value, but a transient nature doesn't mean something has no value. in fact, nearly everything is transient if you zoom out on the timetable enough. So unless your argument is only unbreakable legendary artifacts have value... it's not really an argument at all.
Say you have a +1 longsword and want to use it in the casting of Booming Blade. This weapon, being a magic item, has no listed value. Is it not eligible for being used with this spell?
I believe the purpose of the 1 sp rule with Booming Blade is to exclude conjured weapons like Shadow Blade. A +1 longsword is certainly worth far more than 1 sp.
Can you explain why you think that is the purpose? I was under the impression it had something to do with fixing some odd interaction with component pouches.
The implied and possibly stated purpose behind the editing of the spell descriptions for Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade are to stop the Shadow Blade combo with either of those cantrips.
I have never heard this. Can you point to where you gained this knowledge? Generally, people who make claims like knowing the intent of something someone else did can point to some source of that information. Maybe something someone involved in the change said about their reasoning or intent?
If you expend a 3rd level slot on Shadow Blade, it hits for 3d8 psychic damage (rarely resisted damage type), @ 7th level, Booming Blade hits for an additional 1d8 thunder damage on a successful hit, and an additional 2d8 thunder damage if the target moves 5 feet or more. So quick and dirty, BA Shadow Blade @ 3rd, A Booming Blade as 7th level PC -> Successful hit = 15(3d8)psychic + 5(1d8) thunder with the potential for an additional 10(2d8) if the target decides to move. Let's also say that our aggressor is a 5th level Arcane Trickster Rogue so if we get to add our SA(Sneak Attack) to this pile of shenanigans we get to add on 16(4d6) more points of damage. So far we're at 36 average damage. What happens when we crit? Well, I'm glad you asked! All of the damage dice double of course. If this works.. average damage in the 60s for one strike from a single 7th level PC. Hard to beat!
There is a lot of useless information here. None of this is a quote by the developers who wrote the errata as to why they may or may not have done it.
And what's worse, this is an hyperbolic example, and impossible example that cannot actually exist in the game.
If your argument is that rogues tend to crit high? I mean, obviously? But none of your supporting math is even valid. You stacking upcast spell slots they don't have with doubled dice that would not be doubled from the crit. Its a mess.
Lets actually showcase a crit with a shadowblade vs a crit with a booming blade shadowblade...
2d8+dex+1d8+4d6
vs
2d8+dex+4d6
Lets assume only a 18 dex (because level 7), that's 59 crit damage vs 50 crit damage. A difference of a single d8.
Why a difference of a single d8? Because that's what booming blade does, the thing we're talking about.
And? None of this is relevant, because it says nothing about why the errata was written.
This gets even better with Steel Wind Strike but takes longer to setup and execute.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Spell components ask for worth and the DMG gives you a Magic Item's value. A conjured weapon is not a Magical Item and thus is not included in the value ascribed to Magical Items.
Does it?
Yes, in the form of a gp range. I copy pasted the table from the DMG in my first comment.
Yeah, I had mis-remembered and thought that magic items having GP costs was an optional rule, but it's buying them that's optional, their value (ranges) are actually defined by rarity. So, you're correct, a +1 weapon is certainly not worthless, even if its a formerly-worthless object that becomes enchanted by plot stuff.
I still think it's dumb (and not required by RAW) to hold that conjured items are "worthless," but the DMG value table Misty quoted is probably enough to satisfy even the most pedantic DM that +1 weapons aren't worthless too.
Yeah, I had mis-remembered and thought that magic items having GP costs was an optional rule, but it's buying them that's optional, their value (ranges) are actually defined by rarity. So, you're correct, a +1 weapon is certainly not worthless, even if its a formerly-worthless object that becomes enchanted by plot stuff.
I still think it's dumb (and not required by RAW) to hold that conjured items are "worthless," but the DMG value table Misty quoted is probably enough to satisfy even the most pedantic DM that +1 weapons aren't worthless too.
There's a reason I answered with "DM fiat" initially. Here's the intro to that table, emphasis mine.
If your campaign allows for trade in magic items, rarity canalso help you set pricesfor them. As the DM, you determine the value of an individual magic item based on its rarity. Suggestedvalues are provided in the Magic Item Rarity table.
So even putting aside the ongoing dilemma of price, worth, and value being thrown around by various rules sources as if they're perfectly synonymous when they aren't and as if they have only 1 definition each when they don't, that table is a list of suggestions, and the DM explicitly sets values themselves. Which doesn't help anything for this discussion, because the DM having fiat over the game is Rule 0 already - we went into this discussion already knowing any DM anywhere can set any price/value/worth for anything. If we were looking for the RAW "worth" of a +1 longsword, we have explicitly failed to find it.
My personal RAI, the 1 sp cost is to prevent players from taking a branch and using it in this spell. The cost ensures that the weapon is appropriate for the thematic aspect of this cantrip.
My personal RAI, the 1 sp cost is to prevent players from taking a branch and using it in this spell. The cost ensures that the weapon is appropriate for the thematic aspect of this cantrip.
Oh yes - there's no question the rule does, as may well have been intended, prevent you from using a torch but allow you to use a club. However, it's easy to get an improvised weapon that costs at least 1 sp. What's absolutely impossible is getting an improvised weapon that has the melee or ranged type from the weapons table, so specifying melee weapon was already enough to ban improvised weapons from being used with the spell.
Yeah, I had mis-remembered and thought that magic items having GP costs was an optional rule, but it's buying them that's optional, their value (ranges) are actually defined by rarity. So, you're correct, a +1 weapon is certainly not worthless, even if its a formerly-worthless object that becomes enchanted by plot stuff.
I still think it's dumb (and not required by RAW) to hold that conjured items are "worthless," but the DMG value table Misty quoted is probably enough to satisfy even the most pedantic DM that +1 weapons aren't worthless too.
Conjured items being considered worthless from a game mechanics perspective probably just comes down to a basic accounting principle preference: I believe they chose to calculate an item's worth based on an objective estimate of its current and future value. The conjured item might be worth something in the moment, but it's worth nothing in the very near future. For a real-world example take a product you own for good and compare it with a 1 minute subscription. The subscription's relative worth to you is high while you use it, but will soon be nil. For anyone not using the subscription, its current value is nil and its future value is nil. Its value is objectively nil throughout.
Yeah, I had mis-remembered and thought that magic items having GP costs was an optional rule, but it's buying them that's optional, their value (ranges) are actually defined by rarity. So, you're correct, a +1 weapon is certainly not worthless, even if its a formerly-worthless object that becomes enchanted by plot stuff.
I still think it's dumb (and not required by RAW) to hold that conjured items are "worthless," but the DMG value table Misty quoted is probably enough to satisfy even the most pedantic DM that +1 weapons aren't worthless too.
Conjured items being considered worthless from a game mechanics perspective probably just comes down to a basic accounting principle preference: I believe they chose to calculate an item's worth based on an objective estimate of its current and future value. The conjured item might be worth something in the moment, but it's worth nothing in the very near future. For a real-world example take a product you own for good and compare it with a 1 minute subscription. The subscription's relative worth to you is high while you use it, but will soon be nil. For anyone not using the subscription, its current value is nil and its future value is nil. Its value is objectively nil throughout.
If the spellcaster was required by an agreement with his party that for each time he cast Shadowblade he needed to donate a silver to the party fund, the spell effect then is costing him 1 sp, and then it would be in fact provable and demonstrably worth at least silver piece.
If we are making rulings about value based on perceived worth, then certainly demonstration of worth by exchange of coin would suffice?
Otherwise, only listed prices, printed in the books, for market value, would be acceptable. And, in those cases I'm think I'm back to not being sure a +1 longsword is an eligible target for booming blade by RAW. (I mean, I wouldn't actually rule that way personally or anything at a table but, RAW-wise it seems to be the case)
But, if the idea is simply: Items that exist briefly have no value... then, explain potions. or scrolls. or any consumable. Having a brief effect doesn't mean that effect is worthless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
For those of you discussing the value of items temporarily conjured by magic, Creation Bards, I will remind you, can explicitly conjure items with a value, because their ability has a maximum legal gp value for the item.
Yeah, I had mis-remembered and thought that magic items having GP costs was an optional rule, but it's buying them that's optional, their value (ranges) are actually defined by rarity. So, you're correct, a +1 weapon is certainly not worthless, even if its a formerly-worthless object that becomes enchanted by plot stuff.
I still think it's dumb (and not required by RAW) to hold that conjured items are "worthless," but the DMG value table Misty quoted is probably enough to satisfy even the most pedantic DM that +1 weapons aren't worthless too.
Conjured items being considered worthless from a game mechanics perspective probably just comes down to a basic accounting principle preference: I believe they chose to calculate an item's worth based on an objective estimate of its current and future value. The conjured item might be worth something in the moment, but it's worth nothing in the very near future. For a real-world example take a product you own for good and compare it with a 1 minute subscription. The subscription's relative worth to you is high while you use it, but will soon be nil. For anyone not using the subscription, its current value is nil and its future value is nil. Its value is objectively nil throughout.
If the spellcaster was required by an agreement with his party that for each time he cast Shadowblade he needed to donate a silver to the party fund, the spell effect then is costing him 1 sp, and then it would be in fact provable and demonstrably worth at least silver piece.
If we are making rulings about value based on perceived worth, then certainly demonstration of worth by exchange of coin would suffice?
Otherwise, only listed prices, printed in the books, for market value, would be acceptable. And, in those cases I'm think I'm back to not being sure a +1 longsword is an eligible target for booming blade by RAW. (I mean, I wouldn't actually rule that way personally or anything at a table but, RAW-wise it seems to be the case)
But, if the idea is simply: Items that exist briefly have no value... then, explain potions. or scrolls. or any consumable. Having a brief effect doesn't mean that effect is worthless.
The potion might be valuable to you when you use it, and potentially for you or anyone else in the future when it has yet to be used, but once used it can no longer be used by anyone else, thus having no value (good luck selling the potion you just drank). I am not talking about services such as casting spells or using your potion-enhanced body to help someone else, I was commenting on the worth of items.
But, if the idea is simply: Items that exist briefly have no value... then, explain potions. or scrolls. or any consumable. Having a brief effect doesn't mean that effect is worthless.
The potion might be valuable to you when you use it, and potentially for you or anyone else in the future when it has yet to be used, but once used it can no longer be used by anyone else, thus having no value (good luck selling the potion you just drank). I am not talking about services such as casting spells or using your potion-enhanced body to help someone else, I was commenting on the worth of items.
So then you're arguing that a shadow blade is valuable because you can still use it? Or the fact it cannot be traded makes it lack a value?
Because if not being able to openly trade sometime makes it lack a value, then magic items for sure have no value. It is explicitly stated numerous times that you cannot simply just go buy them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But, if the idea is simply: Items that exist briefly have no value... then, explain potions. or scrolls. or any consumable. Having a brief effect doesn't mean that effect is worthless.
The potion might be valuable to you when you use it, and potentially for you or anyone else in the future when it has yet to be used, but once used it can no longer be used by anyone else, thus having no value (good luck selling the potion you just drank). I am not talking about services such as casting spells or using your potion-enhanced body to help someone else, I was commenting on the worth of items.
So then you're arguing that a shadow blade is valuable because you can still use it? Or the fact it cannot be traded makes it lack a value?
Because if not being able to openly trade sometime makes it lack a value, then magic items for sure have no value. It is explicitly stated numerous times that you cannot simply just go buy them.
I have not seen it stated anywhere that Magic Items are impossible to buy, but I might of course be wrong. The DMG describes Magic Items as hard to come by because of scarcity, not them being inherently impossible to buy: "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."
One can assume that looking past the lore reason for this scarcity ("The game assumes that the secrets of creating the most powerful items arose centuries ago and were then gradually lost as a result of wars, cataclysms, and mishaps.") another reason for this scarcity is simply that a large part of D&D historically is about finding treasure, Magic Items included. If these Magic Items weren't scarce, they wouldn't be worth much and could hardly be called treasure.
Highlight is my emphasis. Let's say you conjure your Shadow Blade, and try to sell it at your local market. Let's imagine that you manage to sell this magical (insert weapon type here) for somewhere in the ballpark of 100-500 GP. Your customer gladly hands over their coin purse, you relinquish the item to their control and ...... well - POOF! "It dissipates at the end of the turn." Then, the unlucky mark customer has the annoying problem of trying to get the purchase price back from you. To me, it makes complete sense to make the "item" worthless. This doesn't make it "wrong" kind of magic, it makes it different. If you spend the time, effort and energy to craft a physical item (albeit in a game relying on suspension of disbelief) and then further allocate time, mystical and magical energies, components, spell slots and potentially exhaustion into the enchanting of said physical item. That makes it "worth" something. The crafters effort, not the weave that "creates" it.
Is your argument: that if an item that isn't completely indestructible and will exist unchanged for all of existence, a nexus of entropy-warded matter incapable of decay or erosion, incapable of withering or fading from time itself... is required for something to have a monetary value?
Nope. My statement is: Shadow Blade doesn't have any value, worth or transitive property that could cause it to provide an effect, either boon or bane, for someone other than the original user. The interaction between the two spells and using the effect of one as the component for the other was the topic of discussion. Also: SAC Shadow Blade Booming Blade.
Normal tools and equipment, especially consumables, have no value or worth because they might not exist soon??
Let's imagine that you manage to sell this magical (potion) for somewhere in the ballpark of 100-500 GP. Your customer gladly hands over their coin purse, you relinquish the item to their control and ...... well - POOF! "They drink it and now it is gone." Then, the unlucky mark customer has the annoying problem of trying to get the purchase price back from you. To me, it makes complete sense to make the "item" worthless.
Dang potion vendors selling people items that will soon enough not exist!! Scammers, all of them!
...
You get why this is a silly example and a silly line of argument right?
How long something exists will of course have an impact on its value, but a transient nature doesn't mean something has no value. in fact, nearly everything is transient if you zoom out on the timetable enough. So unless your argument is only unbreakable legendary artifacts have value... it's not really an argument at all.
I can appreciate that you don't approve of my summary or way of explaining things. But thus far, you haven't provided anything empirical that contradicts the ideas that I've attempted to put forth. I completely agree with your point that all things will experience entropy at some point.
Say you have a +1 longsword and want to use it in the casting of Booming Blade. This weapon, being a magic item, has no listed value. Is it not eligible for being used with this spell?
I believe the purpose of the 1 sp rule with Booming Blade is to exclude conjured weapons like Shadow Blade. A +1 longsword is certainly worth far more than 1 sp.
Can you explain why you think that is the purpose? I was under the impression it had something to do with fixing some odd interaction with component pouches.
The implied and possibly stated purpose behind the editing of the spell descriptions for Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade are to stop the Shadow Blade combo with either of those cantrips.
I have never heard this. Can you point to where you gained this knowledge? Generally, people who make claims like knowing the intent of something someone else did can point to some source of that information. Maybe something someone involved in the change said about their reasoning or intent?
The expressed intent, again from SAC/JC, was to fix the two cantrips in question. On our end the result was limiting the interaction as a RAW prohibition. Again, this is where DM fiat jumps in to determine what is or isn't allowed in their game. JC Twitter Response So, to that end, you are absolutely correct in your statement about component pouches being an exploit to cast those two cantrips. The purpose as stated was to require an actual weapon to cast them. The combos never should have worked.
If you expend a 3rd level slot on Shadow Blade, it hits for 3d8 psychic damage (rarely resisted damage type), @ 7th level, Booming Blade hits for an additional 1d8 thunder damage on a successful hit, and an additional 2d8 thunder damage if the target moves 5 feet or more. So quick and dirty, BA Shadow Blade @ 3rd, A Booming Blade as 7th level PC -> Successful hit = 15(3d8)psychic + 5(1d8) thunder with the potential for an additional 10(2d8) if the target decides to move. Let's also say that our aggressor is a 5th level Arcane Trickster Rogue so if we get to add our SA(Sneak Attack) to this pile of shenanigans we get to add on 16(4d6) more points of damage. So far we're at 36 average damage. What happens when we crit? Well, I'm glad you asked! All of the damage dice double of course. If this works.. average damage in the 60s for one strike from a single 7th level PC. Hard to beat!
There is a lot of useless information here. None of this is a quote by the developers who wrote the errata as to why they may or may not have done it.
And what's worse, this is an hyperbolic example, and impossible example that cannot actually exist in the game.
This seems to be a subjective statement. It is completely within RAW to cast a spell using a spell slot as a Bonus Action, and a Cantrip that has the casting time of one Action. Can be found in the PHB, pg. 202 under Casting a Spell - Casting Time - Bonus Action. Also, AT Rogues gain access to Shadow Blade at 7th level, it's an Illusion spell, completely legal. Now a Bladesinger used to be a monster with this because they were full casters so at 7th level, they could up-cast Shadow Blade with a 3rd or 4th level slot for additional damage dice.
If your argument is that rogues tend to crit high? I mean, obviously? But none of your supporting math is even valid. You stacking upcast spell slots they don't have with doubled dice that would not be doubled from the crit. Its a mess.
Lets actually showcase a crit with a shadowblade vs a crit with a booming blade shadowblade...
2d8+dex+1d8+4d6
vs
2d8+dex+4d6
Lets assume only a 18 dex (because level 7), that's 59 crit damage vs 50 crit damage. A difference of a single d8.
Why a difference of a single d8? Because that's what booming blade does, the thing we're talking about.
And? None of this is relevant, because it says nothing about why the errata was written.
This is a fair assessment. The relevancy of this was to frame how a combo that should not be, can easily sway the outcome of an encounter. I admit that I could have done a better job in projecting that. Also the link to the SCAG Errata that starts to line up how it is possible to use Sneak Attack and crit with booming blade, as it requires that you make a melee attack with the weapon used to cast the spell. Here's where things get somewhat muddy: past level 5, part of the initial attack includes the 1d8 of thunder damage, which, IMHO, should be doubled in the event of a critical hit. The secondary damage would not fall in line with this. If this fails to meet RAW, I would like to have the reference that I might share it with others, and more importantly speak from a better educated place. As far as my analysis including spell slots that AT Rogues wouldn't have - you're right. My analysis was for the Bladesinger. I commented that if we used the AT Rogue, we could include Sneak Attack and did not rework the equation for the lower level Shadow Blade. I stand corrected.
This gets even better with Steel Wind Strike but takes longer to setup and execute.
k
Again, another combo that was not supposed to be allowed.
I apologize if somehow you were offended by any of this. Hopefully my attempt at citing my sources helps you accept my viewpoint. Lastly, I noted that you posed several questions about what my argument was/is. Here it is again: To me, it makes complete sense to make the "item" worthless. This doesn't make it "wrong" kind of magic, it makes it different. If you spend the time, effort and energy to craft a physical item (albeit in a game relying on suspension of disbelief) and then further allocate time, mystical and magical energies, components, spell slots and potentially exhaustion into the enchanting of said physical item. That makes it "worth" something. The crafters effort, not the weave that "creates" it.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Tapdancing back and forth between logical arguments (X has a value because people want it) and textual arguments (X has a value because a value is printed on page Y of the PHB or DMG) leads to inconsistent reasoning. We're talking rules, not economics, so stick to textual.
A Longsword has a value of 15 gp not because it's logical that anyone would pay that specific amount, but because there's an item entry printed in the PHB listing that price. RAW, a Longswordis 15 gp, regardless of whether anyone in the entire world is willing to buy it. You can be the last living creature left in the universe, and that Longswordis a weapon worth 15 gp.
A Longsword +1 has no page you can point to that says it "is" X gp. There is that section of the DMG that suggests that if magic items are tradeable, a DM can choose to set those values based on item rarity, with a table of value range suggestions provided. Probably close enough to saying that there's a printed value for those items, though it has nothing to do with the value of a Longsword.
An Improvised Weapon, made of a shard of magical ice, which functions similar to a Longsword.... is not a Longsword. The DM may or may not want to decide it has some intrinsic value (material worth? a manufactured item having worth as a non-weapon?), but whatever gp value that item has, it has nothing to do with the value of a Longsword.
A conjured Longsword, using Minor Conjuration, is a Longsword. It's a Longsword with some special qualities (glows with magic, vanishes after a certain amount of time), and I'm sure that a DM could make reasonable rulings about that impacting someone's willingness to purchase it.... but just like the Longsword is worth 15 gp as a RAW weapon property even if no one is alive in the world to buy it, so too is that conjured Longsword worth 15 gp as a RAW weapon property even if there's other circumstances that makes purchasing or selling it a losing proposition.
The various arguments about fantastical economics and perceived value, it's pointless when what we're talking about is not an actual in-game roleplayed transaction, but a minor mechanical quality of spells that does not interact with any other creature or decision maker. The caster doesn't have to think to themself "yeah, I bet someone would buy this sword from me for at least 1 sp..." and believe it in order to cast Booming Blade, the item just simply has to have a RAW item listing showing that value. A Longsword has that, whether or not it's conjured. A Longsword +1 probably does too. A shard of obsidian wielded as an improvised weapon probably doesn't, unless obsidian has a value as a raw material (or, unless it's well-crafted enough to actually be a Longsword made of obsidian, rather than an improvised weapon). Shimmering magical energies summoned in the form of a blade definitely doesn't.
If you expend a 3rd level slot on Shadow Blade, it hits for 3d8 psychic damage (rarely resisted damage type), @ 7th level, Booming Blade hits for an additional 1d8 thunder damage on a successful hit, and an additional 2d8 thunder damage if the target moves 5 feet or more. So quick and dirty, BA Shadow Blade @ 3rd, A Booming Blade as 7th level PC -> Successful hit = 15(3d8)psychic + 5(1d8) thunder with the potential for an additional 10(2d8) if the target decides to move. Let's also say that our aggressor is a 5th level Arcane Trickster Rogue so if we get to add our SA(Sneak Attack) to this pile of shenanigans we get to add on 16(4d6) more points of damage. So far we're at 36 average damage. What happens when we crit? Well, I'm glad you asked! All of the damage dice double of course. If this works.. average damage in the 60s for one strike from a single 7th level PC. Hard to beat!
There is a lot of useless information here. None of this is a quote by the developers who wrote the errata as to why they may or may not have done it.
And what's worse, this is an hyperbolic example, and impossible example that cannot actually exist in the game.
This seems to be a subjective statement. It is completely within RAW to cast a spell using a spell slot as a Bonus Action, and a Cantrip that has the casting time of one Action. Can be found in the PHB, pg. 202 under Casting a Spell - Casting Time - Bonus Action. Also, AT Rogues gain access to Shadow Blade at 7th level, it's an Illusion spell, completely legal. Now a Bladesinger used to be a monster with this because they were full casters so at 7th level, they could up-cast Shadow Blade with a 3rd or 4th level slot for additional damage dice.
Sorry, it just seems like you keep conflating things in an attempt to make it sound like you can do more damage than you actually can. If you're a 7th level bladesinger upcasting it to 3rd level slot then you're not also a 5th level arcane trickster somehow adding 4d6 damage sneak attack damage (which you also can't do, it'd be 3d6 at 5th) onto it nor could you even cast it at 5th level arcane trickster, unless you multiclass into some other caster as well, but not while also only being a 7th level character. TLDR: There is no 7th level character that can upcast it to 3rd level and also add 4d6 sneak attack to it. That's not a thing.
If your argument is that rogues tend to crit high? I mean, obviously? But none of your supporting math is even valid. You stacking upcast spell slots they don't have with doubled dice that would not be doubled from the crit. Its a mess.
Lets actually showcase a crit with a shadowblade vs a crit with a booming blade shadowblade...
2d8+dex+1d8+4d6
vs
2d8+dex+4d6
Lets assume only a 18 dex (because level 7), that's 59 crit damage vs 50 crit damage. A difference of a single d8.
Why a difference of a single d8? Because that's what booming blade does, the thing we're talking about.
And? None of this is relevant, because it says nothing about why the errata was written.
This is a fair assessment. The relevancy of this was to frame how a combo that should not be, can easily sway the outcome of an encounter. I admit that I could have done a better job in projecting that. Also the link to the SCAG Errata that starts to line up how it is possible to use Sneak Attack and crit with booming blade, as it requires that you make a melee attack with the weapon used to cast the spell. Here's where things get somewhat muddy: past level 5, part of the initial attack includes the 1d8 of thunder damage, which, IMHO, should be doubled in the event of a critical hit. The secondary damage would not fall in line with this. If this fails to meet RAW, I would like to have the reference that I might share it with others, and more importantly speak from a better educated place.
The damage from moving can't crit because it is a spell effect only and not the direct result of an attack roll.
This gets even better with Steel Wind Strike but takes longer to setup and execute.
k
Again, another combo that was not supposed to be allowed.
It is not supposed to interact with shadow blade because it doesn't interact with any weapon. It doesn't matter if you cast Steel Wind Strike armed with a vorpal sword, or a mundane dagger... either way, you make a melee spell attack and deal 6d10 force damage. The weapon has absolutely nothing to do with the spell effect. You simply must have one to cast it. This is markedly different from what we're talking about.
I apologize if somehow you were offended by any of this. Hopefully my attempt at citing my sources helps you accept my viewpoint. Lastly, I noted that you posed several questions about what my argument was/is. Here it is again: To me, it makes complete sense to make the "item" worthless. This doesn't make it "wrong" kind of magic, it makes it different. If you spend the time, effort and energy to craft a physical item (albeit in a game relying on suspension of disbelief) and then further allocate time, mystical and magical energies, components, spell slots and potentially exhaustion into the enchanting of said physical item. That makes it "worth" something. The crafters effort, not the weave that "creates" it.
I'm aligned against misinformation, and tend to respond strongly to bold claims, when they are presented without evidence. You claimed to know the intent of an errata, and spoke of this knowledge boldly as if it were gospel. You provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions, and asking for that evidence lead to simply more unsupported assertions.
I, personally, don't believe what you're saying because I could have sworn the errata was something to do with interactions of these spells with component pouches. Like, think about it. If your pouch has any component you need for your spells, and Booming Blade just says you need a weapon, then you could pull ANY weapon out of your component pouch when you cast booming blade. That's absurd and needed fixing. Free weapons by casting a cantrip? Needed fixing. You can't have spell component pouches producing melee weapons every time a level one wizard goes about casting a booming blade spell. Even if your DM was a stickler and didn't say you cannot just pull infinite blades out of it, you still could "use a component pouch ... in place of the components specified for a spell." So attacking with a component pouch in place of say, a greatsword you'd want to use for the spell, somehow now doing 2d6 slashing damage on a hit from your... pouch. Again, reality-is-broken levels of needing fixed.
But adding +1d8 to a shadowblade attack at middle levels? Ok, strong damage option. But.. I mean, c'mon. There is no comparison between which of these things is broken. It's not breaking a game's reality to do somewhat higher than average damage. Something simply being a strong option doesn't often warrant an errata.
But that is your claim. That specifically the interaction between a conjured weapon like Shadow Blade and the Booming Blade spell is the reason there was an errata to include a 1 sp cost. I have doubts that is true. I can see that was an effect of the change. But the reason for it? No.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Tapdancing back and forth between logical arguments (X has a value because people want it) and textual arguments (X has a value because a value is printed on page Y of the PHB or DMG) leads to inconsistent reasoning. We're talking rules, not economics, so stick to textual.
A Longsword has a value of 15 gp not because it's logical that anyone would pay that specific amount, but because there's an item entry printed in the PHB listing that price. RAW, a Longswordis 15 gp, regardless of whether anyone in the entire world is willing to buy it. You can be the last living creature left in the universe, and that Longswordis a weapon worth 15 gp.
A Longsword +1 has no page you can point to that says it "is" X gp. There is that section of the DMG that suggests that if magic items are tradeable, a DM can choose to set those values based on item rarity, with a table of value range suggestions provided. Probably close enough to saying that there's a printed value for those items, though it has nothing to do with the value of a Longsword.
An Improvised Weapon, made of a shard of magical ice, which functions similar to a Longsword.... is not a Longsword. The DM may or may not want to decide it has some intrinsic value (material worth? a manufactured item having worth as a non-weapon?), but whatever gp value that item has, it has nothing to do with the value of a Longsword.
A conjured Longsword, using Minor Conjuration, is a Longsword. It's a Longsword with some special qualities (glows with magic, vanishes after a certain amount of time), and I'm sure that a DM could make reasonable rulings about that impacting someone's willingness to purchase it.... but just like the Longsword is worth 15 gp as a RAW weapon property even if no one is alive in the world to buy it, so too is that conjured Longsword worth 15 gp as a RAW weapon property even if there's other circumstances that makes purchasing or selling it a losing proposition.
The various arguments about fantastical economics and perceived value, it's pointless when what we're talking about is not an actual in-game roleplayed transaction, but a minor mechanical quality of spells that does not interact with any other creature or decision maker. The caster doesn't have to think to themself "yeah, I bet someone would buy this sword from me for at least 1 sp..." and believe it in order to cast Booming Blade, the item just simply has to have a RAW item listing showing that value. A Longsword has that, whether or not it's conjured. A Longsword +1 probably does too. A shard of obsidian wielded as an improvised weapon probably doesn't, unless obsidian has a value as a raw material (or, unless it's well-crafted enough to actually be a Longsword made of obsidian, rather than an improvised weapon). Shimmering magical energies summoned in the form of a blade definitely doesn't.
Fantastic post. I really love your formatting, neatly presented. The sentence I bolded and cast enlarge on... that's the crux of this whole thread. Specifically the word "probably". Every fiber of my being fully believes a +1 longsword has an intrinsic value of at least that of a regular longsword... and even the very notion that it doesn't is actually causing cognitive dissonance. But... we can't actually fully get rid of that 'probably', I think, because... there isn't actually a listed price, a firm, concrete printed value, for this item.
So, on the one hand is common sense telling us "of course it's worth at least 1 sp duh" but on the other hand is a strict RAW rules reading that shows there is a missing value entry for the item, and, despite it being markedly better than a functionally and mechanically similar item that does have a listed value.. it, itself, doesn't have one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Tapdancing back and forth between logical arguments (X has a value because people want it) and textual arguments (X has a value because a value is printed on page Y of the PHB or DMG) leads to inconsistent reasoning. We're talking rules, not economics, so stick to textual.
A Longsword has a value of 15 gp not because it's logical that anyone would pay that specific amount, but because there's an item entry printed in the PHB listing that price. RAW, a Longswordis 15 gp, regardless of whether anyone in the entire world is willing to buy it. You can be the last living creature left in the universe, and that Longswordis a weapon worth 15 gp.
A Longsword +1 has no page you can point to that says it "is" X gp. There is that section of the DMG that suggests that if magic items are tradeable, a DM can choose to set those values based on item rarity, with a table of value range suggestions provided. Probably close enough to saying that there's a printed value for those items, though it has nothing to do with the value of a Longsword.
An Improvised Weapon, made of a shard of magical ice, which functions similar to a Longsword.... is not a Longsword. The DM may or may not want to decide it has some intrinsic value (material worth? a manufactured item having worth as a non-weapon?), but whatever gp value that item has, it has nothing to do with the value of a Longsword.
A conjured Longsword, using Minor Conjuration, is a Longsword. It's a Longsword with some special qualities (glows with magic, vanishes after a certain amount of time), and I'm sure that a DM could make reasonable rulings about that impacting someone's willingness to purchase it.... but just like the Longsword is worth 15 gp as a RAW weapon property even if no one is alive in the world to buy it, so too is that conjured Longsword worth 15 gp as a RAW weapon property even if there's other circumstances that makes purchasing or selling it a losing proposition.
The various arguments about fantastical economics and perceived value, it's pointless when what we're talking about is not an actual in-game roleplayed transaction, but a minor mechanical quality of spells that does not interact with any other creature or decision maker. The caster doesn't have to think to themself "yeah, I bet someone would buy this sword from me for at least 1 sp..." and believe it in order to cast Booming Blade, the item just simply has to have a RAW item listing showing that value. A Longsword has that, whether or not it's conjured. A Longsword +1 probably does too. A shard of obsidian wielded as an improvised weapon probably doesn't, unless obsidian has a value as a raw material (or, unless it's well-crafted enough to actually be a Longsword made of obsidian, rather than an improvised weapon). Shimmering magical energies summoned in the form of a blade definitely doesn't.
Fantastic post. I really love your formatting, neatly presented. The sentence I bolded and cast enlarge on... that's the crux of this whole thread. Specifically the word "probably". Every fiber of my being fully believes a +1 longsword has an intrinsic value of at least that of a regular longsword... and even the very notion that it doesn't is actually causing cognitive dissonance. But... we can't actually fully get rid of that 'probably', I think, because... there isn't actually a listed price, a firm, concrete printed value, for this item.
So, on the one hand is common sense telling us "of course it's worth at least 1 sp duh" but on the other hand is a strict RAW rules reading that shows there is a missing value entry for the item, and, despite it being markedly better than a functionally and mechanically similar item that does have a listed value.. it, itself, doesn't have one.
I don't know why you guys are still arguing here, trying to imply that your logical leaps are more valid than anyone else's. Nothing you have said above is any more RAW than anyone else's comments.
The RAW is that the spell requires a "melee weapon worth at least 1sp". There is some RAW guidance for the meaning of "a melee weapon", but there is nothing at all for the meaning of "worth at least 1sp". You seem to be assuming it means "with a listed cost entry of at least 1sp", then searching for the listed cost entries on tables in books. Nothing in the books backs you up on that one way or the other.
The only definitive guidance we have for how to work out whether any given weapon is "worth at least 1sp" is that it is the DM's job to clarify things when the rules are not clear. This is the answer that has been given a page and a half ago, and it remains correct. The remaining discussion is useful, as it gives some ideas for how a DM might make that ruling based on market prices, economics, listed costs, item rarity, magical metaphysics, etc., but it remains DM fiat.
If your DM decides that magical +1 longswords do or don't count, then that is valid. If they decide that conjured temporary longswords do or don't count then that is valid. If they decide that your mundane normal longsword has been damaged in some way and is no longer worth 1sp and does not count then that is valid. If they decide that some object somewhat like a sword is enough of a weapon and worth enough to count then that is valid. It's all equally RAW.
When we get into RAI, it is entirely about our own beliefs based on what we have read and what intention we infer from it. I'm in the camp of - yes to all normal weapons and magic item weapons; no to all temporarily summoned weapons, natural weapons, improvised weapons or other not-strictly-weapon objects.
Knowing all this, the true answer to this query is that if you intend to use a spell that requires a weapon "worth at least X" with anything other than a perfectly normal weapon - it is a good idea to have a quick chat with your DM and check if they are cool with your plan before you invest heavily in it.
I don't know why you guys are still arguing here, trying to imply that your logical leaps are more valid than anyone else's. Nothing you have said above is any more RAW than anyone else's comments.
k
The RAW is that the spell requires a "melee weapon worth at least 1sp". There is some RAW guidance for the meaning of "a melee weapon", but there is nothing at all for the meaning of "worth at least 1sp". You seem to be assuming it means "with a listed cost entry of at least 1sp", then searching for the listed cost entries on tables in books. Nothing in the books backs you up on that one way or the other.
Straight up, your argument is that the items are worth a different amount than what is listed in the books for their value? Unique take.
The only definitive guidance we have for how to work out whether any given weapon is "worth at least 1sp" is that it is the DM's job to clarify things when the rules are not clear. This is the answer that has been given a page and a half ago, and it remains correct. The remaining discussion is useful, as it gives some ideas for how a DM might make that ruling based on market prices, economics, listed costs, item rarity, magical metaphysics, etc., but it remains DM fiat.
If your DM decides that magical +1 longswords do or don't count, then that is valid. If they decide that conjured temporary longswords do or don't count then that is valid. If they decide that your mundane normal longsword has been damaged in some way and is no longer worth 1sp and does not count then that is valid. If they decide that some object somewhat like a sword is enough of a weapon and worth enough to count then that is valid. It's all equally RAW.
When we get into RAI, it is entirely about our own beliefs based on what we have read and what intention we infer from it. I'm in the camp of - yes to all normal weapons and magic item weapons; no to all temporarily summoned weapons, natural weapons, improvised weapons or other not-strictly-weapon objects.
Knowing all this, the true answer to this query is that if you intend to use a spell that requires a weapon "worth at least X" with anything other than a perfectly normal weapon - it is a good idea to have a quick chat with your DM and check if they are cool with your plan before you invest heavily in it.
Wait. OMG. This is revolutionary! I had NO IDEA DMs can make rulings in their game. Mind blowing.
Why do some people get so aggressive about asking 'your DM'. What if I am the DM? Talk to myself? Such a regressive opinion. Basically "Stop trying to figure it out or talk about it and instead contact an authority figure to make your problem go away". Wild.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We could just realize the argument has reached a dead end/is going in circles and stop arguing. That is what I did a while ago.
No one is going to convince me that an item that cost 15 GP is worth nothing when a magic effect officially valued at 100+ GP is added.
Similarly, some people won't change their mind that adding optional buy/sell value means the item losses all its original value. It clearly makes sense to them somehow, so why waste time and energy?
And while "it is up to the DM" is not helpful in progressing a rules discussion, once the discussion has reached the stubborn back and forth it has reach, it should serve to end it. Ultimately, your arguing means nothing, because you don't get to decide how other people play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I thought the reason the material added a cost was so people couldn't poke targets with a wand to cast booming blade (not that any literate DM who actually read the spell would have allowed that anyway).
I'm pretty sure there is a tweet out there where Crawford said that he would allow BB and GFB with shadow blade in his own games. So I don't think they added costs just for that.
Though in end preventing conjured and natural weapons from being used is the only effect of the change. That and now causing people to question if magic weapons work. 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
Is your argument: that if an item that isn't completely indestructible and will exist unchanged for all of existence, a nexus of entropy-warded matter incapable of decay or erosion, incapable of withering or fading from time itself... is required for something to have a monetary value?
Normal tools and equipment, especially consumables, have no value or worth because they might not exist soon??
Dang potion vendors selling people items that will soon enough not exist!! Scammers, all of them!
...
You get why this is a silly example and a silly line of argument right?
How long something exists will of course have an impact on its value, but a transient nature doesn't mean something has no value. in fact, nearly everything is transient if you zoom out on the timetable enough. So unless your argument is only unbreakable legendary artifacts have value... it's not really an argument at all.
I have never heard this. Can you point to where you gained this knowledge? Generally, people who make claims like knowing the intent of something someone else did can point to some source of that information. Maybe something someone involved in the change said about their reasoning or intent?
There is a lot of useless information here. None of this is a quote by the developers who wrote the errata as to why they may or may not have done it.
And what's worse, this is an hyperbolic example, and impossible example that cannot actually exist in the game.
If your argument is that rogues tend to crit high? I mean, obviously? But none of your supporting math is even valid. You stacking upcast spell slots they don't have with doubled dice that would not be doubled from the crit. Its a mess.
Lets actually showcase a crit with a shadowblade vs a crit with a booming blade shadowblade...
2d8+dex+1d8+4d6
vs
2d8+dex+4d6
Lets assume only a 18 dex (because level 7), that's 59 crit damage vs 50 crit damage. A difference of a single d8.
Why a difference of a single d8? Because that's what booming blade does, the thing we're talking about.
And? None of this is relevant, because it says nothing about why the errata was written.
k
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, in the form of a gp range. I copy pasted the table from the DMG in my first comment.
Yeah, I had mis-remembered and thought that magic items having GP costs was an optional rule, but it's buying them that's optional, their value (ranges) are actually defined by rarity. So, you're correct, a +1 weapon is certainly not worthless, even if its a formerly-worthless object that becomes enchanted by plot stuff.
I still think it's dumb (and not required by RAW) to hold that conjured items are "worthless," but the DMG value table Misty quoted is probably enough to satisfy even the most pedantic DM that +1 weapons aren't worthless too.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There's a reason I answered with "DM fiat" initially. Here's the intro to that table, emphasis mine.
If your campaign allows for trade in magic items, rarity can also help you set prices for them. As the DM, you determine the value of an individual magic item based on its rarity. Suggested values are provided in the Magic Item Rarity table.
So even putting aside the ongoing dilemma of price, worth, and value being thrown around by various rules sources as if they're perfectly synonymous when they aren't and as if they have only 1 definition each when they don't, that table is a list of suggestions, and the DM explicitly sets values themselves. Which doesn't help anything for this discussion, because the DM having fiat over the game is Rule 0 already - we went into this discussion already knowing any DM anywhere can set any price/value/worth for anything. If we were looking for the RAW "worth" of a +1 longsword, we have explicitly failed to find it.
My personal RAI, the 1 sp cost is to prevent players from taking a branch and using it in this spell. The cost ensures that the weapon is appropriate for the thematic aspect of this cantrip.
Oh yes - there's no question the rule does, as may well have been intended, prevent you from using a torch but allow you to use a club. However, it's easy to get an improvised weapon that costs at least 1 sp. What's absolutely impossible is getting an improvised weapon that has the melee or ranged type from the weapons table, so specifying melee weapon was already enough to ban improvised weapons from being used with the spell.
Conjured items being considered worthless from a game mechanics perspective probably just comes down to a basic accounting principle preference: I believe they chose to calculate an item's worth based on an objective estimate of its current and future value. The conjured item might be worth something in the moment, but it's worth nothing in the very near future. For a real-world example take a product you own for good and compare it with a 1 minute subscription. The subscription's relative worth to you is high while you use it, but will soon be nil. For anyone not using the subscription, its current value is nil and its future value is nil. Its value is objectively nil throughout.
If the spellcaster was required by an agreement with his party that for each time he cast Shadowblade he needed to donate a silver to the party fund, the spell effect then is costing him 1 sp, and then it would be in fact provable and demonstrably worth at least silver piece.
If we are making rulings about value based on perceived worth, then certainly demonstration of worth by exchange of coin would suffice?
Otherwise, only listed prices, printed in the books, for market value, would be acceptable. And, in those cases I'm think I'm back to not being sure a +1 longsword is an eligible target for booming blade by RAW. (I mean, I wouldn't actually rule that way personally or anything at a table but, RAW-wise it seems to be the case)
But, if the idea is simply: Items that exist briefly have no value... then, explain potions. or scrolls. or any consumable. Having a brief effect doesn't mean that effect is worthless.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
For those of you discussing the value of items temporarily conjured by magic, Creation Bards, I will remind you, can explicitly conjure items with a value, because their ability has a maximum legal gp value for the item.
The potion might be valuable to you when you use it, and potentially for you or anyone else in the future when it has yet to be used, but once used it can no longer be used by anyone else, thus having no value (good luck selling the potion you just drank). I am not talking about services such as casting spells or using your potion-enhanced body to help someone else, I was commenting on the worth of items.
So then you're arguing that a shadow blade is valuable because you can still use it? Or the fact it cannot be traded makes it lack a value?
Because if not being able to openly trade sometime makes it lack a value, then magic items for sure have no value. It is explicitly stated numerous times that you cannot simply just go buy them.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I have not seen it stated anywhere that Magic Items are impossible to buy, but I might of course be wrong. The DMG describes Magic Items as hard to come by because of scarcity, not them being inherently impossible to buy: "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."
One can assume that looking past the lore reason for this scarcity ("The game assumes that the secrets of creating the most powerful items arose centuries ago and were then gradually lost as a result of wars, cataclysms, and mishaps.") another reason for this scarcity is simply that a large part of D&D historically is about finding treasure, Magic Items included. If these Magic Items weren't scarce, they wouldn't be worth much and could hardly be called treasure.
Nope. My statement is: Shadow Blade doesn't have any value, worth or transitive property that could cause it to provide an effect, either boon or bane, for someone other than the original user. The interaction between the two spells and using the effect of one as the component for the other was the topic of discussion. Also: SAC Shadow Blade Booming Blade.
I can appreciate that you don't approve of my summary or way of explaining things. But thus far, you haven't provided anything empirical that contradicts the ideas that I've attempted to put forth. I completely agree with your point that all things will experience entropy at some point.
The expressed intent, again from SAC/JC, was to fix the two cantrips in question. On our end the result was limiting the interaction as a RAW prohibition. Again, this is where DM fiat jumps in to determine what is or isn't allowed in their game. JC Twitter Response So, to that end, you are absolutely correct in your statement about component pouches being an exploit to cast those two cantrips. The purpose as stated was to require an actual weapon to cast them. The combos never should have worked.
This seems to be a subjective statement. It is completely within RAW to cast a spell using a spell slot as a Bonus Action, and a Cantrip that has the casting time of one Action. Can be found in the PHB, pg. 202 under Casting a Spell - Casting Time - Bonus Action. Also, AT Rogues gain access to Shadow Blade at 7th level, it's an Illusion spell, completely legal. Now a Bladesinger used to be a monster with this because they were full casters so at 7th level, they could up-cast Shadow Blade with a 3rd or 4th level slot for additional damage dice.
This is a fair assessment. The relevancy of this was to frame how a combo that should not be, can easily sway the outcome of an encounter. I admit that I could have done a better job in projecting that. Also the link to the SCAG Errata that starts to line up how it is possible to use Sneak Attack and crit with booming blade, as it requires that you make a melee attack with the weapon used to cast the spell. Here's where things get somewhat muddy: past level 5, part of the initial attack includes the 1d8 of thunder damage, which, IMHO, should be doubled in the event of a critical hit. The secondary damage would not fall in line with this. If this fails to meet RAW, I would like to have the reference that I might share it with others, and more importantly speak from a better educated place. As far as my analysis including spell slots that AT Rogues wouldn't have - you're right. My analysis was for the Bladesinger. I commented that if we used the AT Rogue, we could include Sneak Attack and did not rework the equation for the lower level Shadow Blade. I stand corrected.
Again, another combo that was not supposed to be allowed.
I apologize if somehow you were offended by any of this. Hopefully my attempt at citing my sources helps you accept my viewpoint. Lastly, I noted that you posed several questions about what my argument was/is. Here it is again: To me, it makes complete sense to make the "item" worthless. This doesn't make it "wrong" kind of magic, it makes it different. If you spend the time, effort and energy to craft a physical item (albeit in a game relying on suspension of disbelief) and then further allocate time, mystical and magical energies, components, spell slots and potentially exhaustion into the enchanting of said physical item. That makes it "worth" something. The crafters effort, not the weave that "creates" it.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Tapdancing back and forth between logical arguments (X has a value because people want it) and textual arguments (X has a value because a value is printed on page Y of the PHB or DMG) leads to inconsistent reasoning. We're talking rules, not economics, so stick to textual.
The various arguments about fantastical economics and perceived value, it's pointless when what we're talking about is not an actual in-game roleplayed transaction, but a minor mechanical quality of spells that does not interact with any other creature or decision maker. The caster doesn't have to think to themself "yeah, I bet someone would buy this sword from me for at least 1 sp..." and believe it in order to cast Booming Blade, the item just simply has to have a RAW item listing showing that value. A Longsword has that, whether or not it's conjured. A Longsword +1 probably does too. A shard of obsidian wielded as an improvised weapon probably doesn't, unless obsidian has a value as a raw material (or, unless it's well-crafted enough to actually be a Longsword made of obsidian, rather than an improvised weapon). Shimmering magical energies summoned in the form of a blade definitely doesn't.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sorry, it just seems like you keep conflating things in an attempt to make it sound like you can do more damage than you actually can. If you're a 7th level bladesinger upcasting it to 3rd level slot then you're not also a 5th level arcane trickster somehow adding 4d6 damage sneak attack damage (which you also can't do, it'd be 3d6 at 5th) onto it nor could you even cast it at 5th level arcane trickster, unless you multiclass into some other caster as well, but not while also only being a 7th level character. TLDR: There is no 7th level character that can upcast it to 3rd level and also add 4d6 sneak attack to it. That's not a thing.
The damage from moving can't crit because it is a spell effect only and not the direct result of an attack roll.
It is not supposed to interact with shadow blade because it doesn't interact with any weapon. It doesn't matter if you cast Steel Wind Strike armed with a vorpal sword, or a mundane dagger... either way, you make a melee spell attack and deal 6d10 force damage. The weapon has absolutely nothing to do with the spell effect. You simply must have one to cast it. This is markedly different from what we're talking about.
I'm aligned against misinformation, and tend to respond strongly to bold claims, when they are presented without evidence. You claimed to know the intent of an errata, and spoke of this knowledge boldly as if it were gospel. You provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions, and asking for that evidence lead to simply more unsupported assertions.
I, personally, don't believe what you're saying because I could have sworn the errata was something to do with interactions of these spells with component pouches. Like, think about it. If your pouch has any component you need for your spells, and Booming Blade just says you need a weapon, then you could pull ANY weapon out of your component pouch when you cast booming blade. That's absurd and needed fixing. Free weapons by casting a cantrip? Needed fixing. You can't have spell component pouches producing melee weapons every time a level one wizard goes about casting a booming blade spell. Even if your DM was a stickler and didn't say you cannot just pull infinite blades out of it, you still could "use a component pouch ... in place of the components specified for a spell." So attacking with a component pouch in place of say, a greatsword you'd want to use for the spell, somehow now doing 2d6 slashing damage on a hit from your... pouch. Again, reality-is-broken levels of needing fixed.
But adding +1d8 to a shadowblade attack at middle levels? Ok, strong damage option. But.. I mean, c'mon. There is no comparison between which of these things is broken. It's not breaking a game's reality to do somewhat higher than average damage. Something simply being a strong option doesn't often warrant an errata.
But that is your claim. That specifically the interaction between a conjured weapon like Shadow Blade and the Booming Blade spell is the reason there was an errata to include a 1 sp cost. I have doubts that is true. I can see that was an effect of the change. But the reason for it? No.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Fantastic post. I really love your formatting, neatly presented. The sentence I bolded and cast enlarge on... that's the crux of this whole thread. Specifically the word "probably". Every fiber of my being fully believes a +1 longsword has an intrinsic value of at least that of a regular longsword... and even the very notion that it doesn't is actually causing cognitive dissonance. But... we can't actually fully get rid of that 'probably', I think, because... there isn't actually a listed price, a firm, concrete printed value, for this item.
So, on the one hand is common sense telling us "of course it's worth at least 1 sp duh" but on the other hand is a strict RAW rules reading that shows there is a missing value entry for the item, and, despite it being markedly better than a functionally and mechanically similar item that does have a listed value.. it, itself, doesn't have one.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't know why you guys are still arguing here, trying to imply that your logical leaps are more valid than anyone else's. Nothing you have said above is any more RAW than anyone else's comments.
The RAW is that the spell requires a "melee weapon worth at least 1sp". There is some RAW guidance for the meaning of "a melee weapon", but there is nothing at all for the meaning of "worth at least 1sp". You seem to be assuming it means "with a listed cost entry of at least 1sp", then searching for the listed cost entries on tables in books. Nothing in the books backs you up on that one way or the other.
The only definitive guidance we have for how to work out whether any given weapon is "worth at least 1sp" is that it is the DM's job to clarify things when the rules are not clear. This is the answer that has been given a page and a half ago, and it remains correct. The remaining discussion is useful, as it gives some ideas for how a DM might make that ruling based on market prices, economics, listed costs, item rarity, magical metaphysics, etc., but it remains DM fiat.
If your DM decides that magical +1 longswords do or don't count, then that is valid. If they decide that conjured temporary longswords do or don't count then that is valid. If they decide that your mundane normal longsword has been damaged in some way and is no longer worth 1sp and does not count then that is valid. If they decide that some object somewhat like a sword is enough of a weapon and worth enough to count then that is valid. It's all equally RAW.
When we get into RAI, it is entirely about our own beliefs based on what we have read and what intention we infer from it. I'm in the camp of - yes to all normal weapons and magic item weapons; no to all temporarily summoned weapons, natural weapons, improvised weapons or other not-strictly-weapon objects.
Knowing all this, the true answer to this query is that if you intend to use a spell that requires a weapon "worth at least X" with anything other than a perfectly normal weapon - it is a good idea to have a quick chat with your DM and check if they are cool with your plan before you invest heavily in it.
k
Straight up, your argument is that the items are worth a different amount than what is listed in the books for their value? Unique take.
Wait. OMG. This is revolutionary! I had NO IDEA DMs can make rulings in their game. Mind blowing.
Why do some people get so aggressive about asking 'your DM'. What if I am the DM? Talk to myself? Such a regressive opinion. Basically "Stop trying to figure it out or talk about it and instead contact an authority figure to make your problem go away". Wild.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
We could just realize the argument has reached a dead end/is going in circles and stop arguing. That is what I did a while ago.
No one is going to convince me that an item that cost 15 GP is worth nothing when a magic effect officially valued at 100+ GP is added.
Similarly, some people won't change their mind that adding optional buy/sell value means the item losses all its original value. It clearly makes sense to them somehow, so why waste time and energy?
And while "it is up to the DM" is not helpful in progressing a rules discussion, once the discussion has reached the stubborn back and forth it has reach, it should serve to end it. Ultimately, your arguing means nothing, because you don't get to decide how other people play.