If I was selling my magical services to a customer, I would charge at LEAST 50gp for a second level spell. My shadow blade is built different than yall's, therefore is eligible for booming blade :)
Honestly, I don't think it's a big deal. The blade is an illusion. Literally, that's the school of magic it belongs to. It shouldn't be a material component for a spell.
Picture this: you cast the spell, gripping an imaginary sword in the process, and your shadow grows as if you're now carrying a sword in your hand. Now you feel the weight of a blade in your hand, and it scares you a little. It really scares the person you're about to cut with it. They know in their gut that something is amiss. Then you strike, and the psychic backlash of the illusory weapon cutting into them causes pain. Maybe you trick their mind so much they actually start to bleed, though their clothes and armor remain intact. After all, isn't it enough if your mind thinks it's real?
I understand being confused by using an illusion spell as a weapon, but the reason that shadow blade is a real weapon and should be capable, IMHO, of being used with Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade is because it is a specific type of illusion magic, called Shadow Magic. Shadow Magic actually creates physical objects that can be held and can damage others, and are quasi-real. It may seem weird lighting an illusion on fire, but it doesn't break the lore of D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Ah, are you trying to start a "price versus value" debate?
I am saying the rule books give values to anything the rules ascribe value to, and those are the only ones that matter to material component requirements.
I understand being confused by using an illusion spell as a weapon, but the reason that shadow blade is a real weapon and should be capable, IMHO, of being used with Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade is because it is a specific type of illusion magic, called Shadow Magic. Shadow Magic actually creates physical objects that can be held and can damage others, and are quasi-real. It may seem weird lighting an illusion on fire, but it doesn't break the lore of D&D.
I wasn't confused. I just didn't care. Shadow Magic isn't universal across the multiverse. In any case, I still disagree.
Shadow: Using extra-dimensional energy, illusions from this sub-school are partially real and can affect the world around them or damage things.
Ah, are you trying to start a "price versus value" debate?
I am saying the rule books give values to anything the rules ascribe value to, and those are the only ones that matter to material component requirements.
So, because there isn't any listed price for Mithral or Adamantine, therefore it is worth 0 gp and its price that does not matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Honestly, I don't think it's a big deal. The blade is an illusion. Literally, that's the school of magic it belongs to. It shouldn't be a material component for a spell.
Picture this: you cast the spell, gripping an imaginary sword in the process, and your shadow grows as if you're now carrying a sword in your hand. ...
It's explicitly solid, a weapon, and a type of sword. The spell tells you as much:
You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient.
The damage type shouldn't disqualify it any more than it'd disqualify a Sun Blade.
The illusion school has always had spells that can create solid, tangible things, often associated with the Plane of Shadow or Shadowfell depending on the edition. Besides Shadow Blade there's also Phantom Steed, Creation, Mirage Arcane, Simulacrum, Illusory Dragon and the School of Illusion's Illusory Reality feature.
If the spell consumed the material component, trying to skirt around the monetary cost with a temporary item would be one thing. But that's not the case here and the only reason they added a cost was to ensure you don't use a focus or component pouch instead of a weapon. There's really no good reason to stop this from working.
Honestly, I don't think it's a big deal. The blade is an illusion. Literally, that's the school of magic it belongs to. It shouldn't be a material component for a spell.
Picture this: you cast the spell, gripping an imaginary sword in the process, and your shadow grows as if you're now carrying a sword in your hand. ...
It's explicitly solid, a weapon, and a type of sword. The spell tells you as much:
You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient.
The damage type shouldn't disqualify it any more than it'd disqualify a Sun Blade.
The illusion school has always had spells that can create solid, tangible things, often associated with the Plane of Shadow or Shadowfell depending on the edition. Besides Shadow Blade there's also Phantom Steed, Creation, Mirage Arcane, Simulacrum, Illusory Dragon and the School of Illusion's Illusory Reality feature.
If the spell consumed the material component, trying to skirt around the monetary cost with a temporary item would be one thing. But that's not the case here and the only reason they added a cost was to ensure you don't use a focus or component pouch instead of a weapon. There's really no good reason to stop this from working.
Well, excuse me for trying to be evocative and putting a flavorful spin on things.
Ah, are you trying to start a "price versus value" debate?
I am saying the rule books give values to anything the rules ascribe value to, and those are the only ones that matter to material component requirements.
So, because there isn't any listed price for Mithral or Adamantine, therefore it is worth 0 gp and its price that does not matter.
Couldn’t have stated it better. 5e assumes objective value, not subjective.
I have realized that there is a simple workaround for the Shadow Blade/ Booming Blade silliness WOTC has created with these changes. Either ignore these changes, as much of Tasha's should be ignored, or open up the PHB, go to page 149, and look at the Simple Melee Weapon chart.
Ask your DM to find a weapon on that chart that has a cost below 1 SP. Tell him you will wait. Shadow Blade explicitly says "it counts as a simple melee weapon ". That wording is unambiguous. BTW, I am a DM, as well as a player. So I know how this will be handled at my table, and I am the most strict of all the DM's I associate with (there are at least 6 of us that operate out of a gaming cafe).
Now, for those that play AL, my sympathies. Your Arcane Trickster has been ruined.
So a summoned weapon which is replicating a physical weapon counts for those purposes.
Depends on the physical weapon. A warlock can conjure/summon a specific weapon, like a longsword. That has a monetary value. But the sword summoned by shadow blade doesn't. Crawford even says so in a different tweet.
Well, excuse me for trying to be evocative and putting a flavorful spin on things.
I apologize if my post came off as an attack. I just wanted to clear up that you can't conclude shadow blade isn't real based on the damage type or the spell's school. I appreciate the narrative flare in your description; I just think it's put to better use in favor of the player.
Depends on the physical weapon. A warlock can conjure/summon a specific weapon, like a longsword. That has a monetary value. But the sword summoned by shadow blade doesn't. Crawford even says so in a different tweet.
In my opinion framing the discussion in terms of market value kind of misses the point. Magic doesn't care about the economy, the price is just a proxy for the quality, purity, rarity or craftsmanship of the materials. The question here should be "is Shadow Blade a suitable object for a spell that requires a weapon of a certain quality", not "how much money could I sell this temporary sword for"?
....weird take Proxy, and disagree with literally everything you said! :D
its not a weird take it is how it reads, it does not say "make a melee spell attack ageist a target" like shocking grasp it says " you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range" it doesn't say the weapon attack is part of the spell nor does it actually target a creature because the weapon attack targets said creature, and distant spell only effects the spells range not your melee weapons range, I was very clear and used quotes from the actually spell, I explained its interaction with distant spell and to be eligible for twined spell meta magic it must 1. target a creature (witch it does not) 2. only target ONE creature and 3. not have a range of self, I mean you can disagree if you want, you would be wrong but you can if you like.
So per your logic, as part of the casting of the spell, you make a melee attack with a weapon. This isn’t part of the spell itself, it’s basically the somatic component of casting (right?)
While the attack itself doesn’t “target” the creature per your logic (although this attack clearly is what designates which creature is affected by Magic thunder, so your logic seems like a big stretch to me), you can’t deny that the spell/Magic aspect “takes Thunder damage” - *does* affect exactly one creature. “Target” is loosely defined but it’s basically “whatever the spell directly affects”.
Since Booming Blade can affect exactly one creature, it can therefore target exactly one creature, and thus it can be twinned. This definition of “targeted” is consistent with rules as written and various Sage Advice answers.
Check this logic: suppose you didn’t have to make a weapon attack at all. The Thunder damage still affects exactly one creature; you still pick which creature, and thus it is still “targeted”; and it is exactly one creature, so it can be “twinned”.
Now, I could see an argument that the weapon attack itself can’t be twinned, even if the Thunder damage can. Same for distant spell. I don’t agree, based on the melee attack being THE means both for determining which creature is affected and WHETHER the creature is affected at all.
it does, however have one target. It very clearly states to make a melee attack.
its not a weird take it is how it reads, it does not say "make a melee spell attack ageist a target" like shocking grasp it says " you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range" it doesn't say the weapon attack is part of the spell nor does it actually target a creature because the weapon attack targets said creature
I feel like it's obvious that whenever you target a creature with a spell, that creature becomes the target. Keep in mind there are tons of spells that don't say to make a melee spell attack against a target, it's more like 50:50. Also it's not even a melee weapon attack, it's just a melee attack.
"Choose one or two creatures you can see within range. If you choose two, they must be within 5 feet of each other. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage." Acid Splash
The argument choosing one/two creatures but since it never states the creatures you choose become the target, thus the acid splash targets absolutely nothing is kinda pointless. In fact, as I said before like half the spells state to make a attack against a target, the other half just use similar language to Booming Blade (make a attack/saving throw against a creature, the target takes XdX damage)
Edit: Yeah sorry Jounichi (below me), didn't check how old the thread was before replying. Will try to avoid accidental necromancy mishaps in the future. Wouldn't want to get the paladins on me.
Having a range of "Self" is not the same as having a range of "Self (5-foot raidus)." Both spells originate from the spellcaster and only have one potential target. They can be twinned.
Also, both of you should try to avoid thread necromancy. It's been more than six months since the last post in November of last year.
Having a range of "Self" is not the same as having a range of "Self (5-foot raidus)." Both spells originate from the spellcaster and only have one potential target. They can be twinned.
I agree with this not because I think it's correct, but because I think the change was stupid. Twinned booming blades were my bread and butter when playing low level sorcadins.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Having a range of "Self" is not the same as having a range of "Self (5-foot raidus)." Both spells originate from the spellcaster and only have one potential target. They can be twinned.
I agree with this not because I think it's correct, but because I think the change was stupid. Twinned booming blades were my bread and butter when playing low level sorcadins.
I mean, if it's incorrect it's incorrect. I'll own it. And it's not a huge deal if that were the case.
Before the errata, booming blade was the only one of the two that could be subject to Twinned Spell or used with War Caster. Now, they can both be used with War Caster. If that means we lose the Twinned Spell compatibility, so be it.
Having a range of "Self" is not the same as having a range of "Self (5-foot raidus)." Both spells originate from the spellcaster and only have one potential target. They can be twinned.
Also, both of you should try to avoid thread necromancy. It's been more than six months since the last post in November of last year.
Sure can't. In fact, the primary purpose of that change was shutting down metamagic shenanigans with the spell (both distant and twinned), and they nailed that. Booming Blade has two targets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I was selling my magical services to a customer, I would charge at LEAST 50gp for a second level spell. My shadow blade is built different than yall's, therefore is eligible for booming blade :)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Honestly, I don't think it's a big deal. The blade is an illusion. Literally, that's the school of magic it belongs to. It shouldn't be a material component for a spell.
Picture this: you cast the spell, gripping an imaginary sword in the process, and your shadow grows as if you're now carrying a sword in your hand. Now you feel the weight of a blade in your hand, and it scares you a little. It really scares the person you're about to cut with it. They know in their gut that something is amiss. Then you strike, and the psychic backlash of the illusory weapon cutting into them causes pain. Maybe you trick their mind so much they actually start to bleed, though their clothes and armor remain intact. After all, isn't it enough if your mind thinks it's real?
I understand being confused by using an illusion spell as a weapon, but the reason that shadow blade is a real weapon and should be capable, IMHO, of being used with Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade is because it is a specific type of illusion magic, called Shadow Magic. Shadow Magic actually creates physical objects that can be held and can damage others, and are quasi-real. It may seem weird lighting an illusion on fire, but it doesn't break the lore of D&D.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I am saying the rule books give values to anything the rules ascribe value to, and those are the only ones that matter to material component requirements.
I wasn't confused. I just didn't care. Shadow Magic isn't universal across the multiverse. In any case, I still disagree.
It's only kind of there.
So, because there isn't any listed price for Mithral or Adamantine, therefore it is worth 0 gp and its price that does not matter.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think the change was NOT meant to disqualify shadow blade, just to stop people from using improvised weapons for the spell.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
It's explicitly solid, a weapon, and a type of sword. The spell tells you as much:
The damage type shouldn't disqualify it any more than it'd disqualify a Sun Blade.
The illusion school has always had spells that can create solid, tangible things, often associated with the Plane of Shadow or Shadowfell depending on the edition. Besides Shadow Blade there's also Phantom Steed, Creation, Mirage Arcane, Simulacrum, Illusory Dragon and the School of Illusion's Illusory Reality feature.
If the spell consumed the material component, trying to skirt around the monetary cost with a temporary item would be one thing. But that's not the case here and the only reason they added a cost was to ensure you don't use a focus or component pouch instead of a weapon. There's really no good reason to stop this from working.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Well, excuse me for trying to be evocative and putting a flavorful spin on things.
Couldn’t have stated it better. 5e assumes objective value, not subjective.
I have realized that there is a simple workaround for the Shadow Blade/ Booming Blade silliness WOTC has created with these changes. Either ignore these changes, as much of Tasha's should be ignored, or open up the PHB, go to page 149, and look at the Simple Melee Weapon chart.
Ask your DM to find a weapon on that chart that has a cost below 1 SP. Tell him you will wait. Shadow Blade explicitly says "it counts as a simple melee weapon ". That wording is unambiguous. BTW, I am a DM, as well as a player. So I know how this will be handled at my table, and I am the most strict of all the DM's I associate with (there are at least 6 of us that operate out of a gaming cafe).
Now, for those that play AL, my sympathies. Your Arcane Trickster has been ruined.
JC has said that the monetary value is merely there to prevent you using a component pouch or similar.
See https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1327125727360245761
So a summoned weapon which is replicating a physical weapon counts for those purposes.
Depends on the physical weapon. A warlock can conjure/summon a specific weapon, like a longsword. That has a monetary value. But the sword summoned by shadow blade doesn't. Crawford even says so in a different tweet.
I apologize if my post came off as an attack. I just wanted to clear up that you can't conclude shadow blade isn't real based on the damage type or the spell's school. I appreciate the narrative flare in your description; I just think it's put to better use in favor of the player.
Crawford also says that if the rules don't assign a value to an object, its value is up to the DM.
In my opinion framing the discussion in terms of market value kind of misses the point. Magic doesn't care about the economy, the price is just a proxy for the quality, purity, rarity or craftsmanship of the materials. The question here should be "is Shadow Blade a suitable object for a spell that requires a weapon of a certain quality", not "how much money could I sell this temporary sword for"?
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So per your logic, as part of the casting of the spell, you make a melee attack with a weapon. This isn’t part of the spell itself, it’s basically the somatic component of casting (right?)
While the attack itself doesn’t “target” the creature per your logic (although this attack clearly is what designates which creature is affected by Magic thunder, so your logic seems like a big stretch to me), you can’t deny that the spell/Magic aspect “takes Thunder damage” - *does* affect exactly one creature. “Target” is loosely defined but it’s basically “whatever the spell directly affects”.
Since Booming Blade can affect exactly one creature, it can therefore target exactly one creature, and thus it can be twinned. This definition of “targeted” is consistent with rules as written and various Sage Advice answers.
Check this logic: suppose you didn’t have to make a weapon attack at all. The Thunder damage still affects exactly one creature; you still pick which creature, and thus it is still “targeted”; and it is exactly one creature, so it can be “twinned”.
Now, I could see an argument that the weapon attack itself can’t be twinned, even if the Thunder damage can. Same for distant spell. I don’t agree, based on the melee attack being THE means both for determining which creature is affected and WHETHER the creature is affected at all.
Booming Blade cannot be twinned, as it has the range of Self (5 ft), which makes it illegal for twinned spell ("When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self", Twinned Spell metamagic feature).
it does, however have one target. It very clearly states to make a melee attack.
I feel like it's obvious that whenever you target a creature with a spell, that creature becomes the target. Keep in mind there are tons of spells that don't say to make a melee spell attack against a target, it's more like 50:50. Also it's not even a melee weapon attack, it's just a melee attack.
"Choose one or two creatures you can see within range. If you choose two, they must be within 5 feet of each other. A target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 acid damage." Acid Splash
The argument choosing one/two creatures but since it never states the creatures you choose become the target, thus the acid splash targets absolutely nothing is kinda pointless. In fact, as I said before like half the spells state to make a attack against a target, the other half just use similar language to Booming Blade (make a attack/saving throw against a creature, the target takes XdX damage)
See Chill Touch, Eldritch Blast, Fire Bolt, Frostbite, Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, Sacred Flame, Vicious Mockery, and these are only a couple cantrips. There are probably a ton more of these & actual spells.
Most of the above are "twinnable" as well.
Edit: Yeah sorry Jounichi (below me), didn't check how old the thread was before replying. Will try to avoid accidental necromancy mishaps in the future. Wouldn't want to get the paladins on me.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Having a range of "Self" is not the same as having a range of "Self (5-foot raidus)." Both spells originate from the spellcaster and only have one potential target. They can be twinned.
Also, both of you should try to avoid thread necromancy. It's been more than six months since the last post in November of last year.
I agree with this not because I think it's correct, but because I think the change was stupid. Twinned booming blades were my bread and butter when playing low level sorcadins.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I mean, if it's incorrect it's incorrect. I'll own it. And it's not a huge deal if that were the case.
Before the errata, booming blade was the only one of the two that could be subject to Twinned Spell or used with War Caster. Now, they can both be used with War Caster. If that means we lose the Twinned Spell compatibility, so be it.
Sure can't. In fact, the primary purpose of that change was shutting down metamagic shenanigans with the spell (both distant and twinned), and they nailed that. Booming Blade has two targets.