The entire thing would be less of an issue if the Extra Attack feature did what it always does, and they had given them a separate feature which allowed them to cast a Cantrip and make a single weapon attack as part of the same Action. That way the player still has the exact same choices, the Extra Attack wouldn’t need any special anything, and it would still insulate the whole issue against multiclassing. But what am I saying?!? That would have been too simple. 🙄
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes, at different levels. There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.
But there is only one extra attack feature. There is now a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass. There is only one mage hand spell. There is a specific rule that alters how that feature works for one subclass.
But as I just quoted iconarising for, that isn't really what's going on, since Multiclass chapter tells you that you need to track "Extra Attack" seperately from each class you get it from, and not combine them. If Chapter 6 isn't errata'd, then you don't have typical Extra Attack + new interactions from Bladesinger, you now have a choice on any given round between whether you want to use your Fighter Extra Attack (2) or your Bladesinger Extra Attack*, not one Extra Attack feature enhanced from all of your classes combined.
Most people who are pretty comfortable with the rules know that game features with the same name do not combine. For sure, this could confuse newbies, but no more than combining Extra Attack features from different classes did already.
The real issue is that only "the most potent one" actually takes effect. Clearly, the bladesinger's Extra Attack is more potent than any other non-fighter class's. But is (three weapon attacks) more or less potent than (either two weapon attacks or one weapon attack and a cantrip)? The intent is probably to let the player choose, but the rules as written are pretty clear that they don't get to.
This is not a clean rule, and does not conform to 5E's supposed design philosophy. "It's your fault for being confused" is a remarkably tone-deaf and unhelpful analysis. They have the resources, and the staff, to adequately playtest new rule publications to avoid unnecessarily dense language like this, and should not be excused for failing to do so.
A thing, whether that thing is a feature, item, or spell, only does what it says it does. Nothing more, and nothing less. The Extra Attack feature on someone else's character sheet, especially if it's acquired from a different class, has no bearing on what is on your character sheet. Players do not need to know all the different rules for every option in the game. Neither does the Dungeon Master, for that matter.
I don't know that Chapter 6 requires you to not have a choice on any given round. Unarmored Defense explicitly tells you that once you get it from one class, you can't get it on your character sheet from a second class, so you aren't deciding moment-to-moment or round-to-round how your AC is being calculated. Extra Attack doesn't tell you that, either within the class descriptions or in Chapter 6. Choosing which Extra Attack to use on any given action is no more forbidden than choosing which Spellcasting feature you're using on any given action. But I believe that there's far fewer signals to players to remind them that they're making a choice when they start their action for Extra Attack than there are normally for Spellcasting (which honestly I already think is too complicated and under-the-hood in how it interacts with the information actually printed on a multiclass character's spell sheet).
It just feels like complexity for the sole sake of saying "no" to something that could have been published as a "yes" without anyone batting their eye. Similar design philosophy feel to EK's having such complicated school restrictions on their spell choices at level up, where they aren't allowed to pick from their entire spell list except at specific levels, creating a bookkeeping hassle for the sole sake of saying "no" to the player who wants to play a Divination-focused EK. There's somebody in the design team who keeps sneaking in with a very oldschool philosophy of "write the rule so that it works for the concept I had in mind, but nothing else," and it pisses me off every time I see it because for the most part 5E isn't supposed to be that way.
This is not a clean rule, and does not conform to 5E's supposed design philosophy. "It's your fault for being confused" is a remarkably tone-deaf and unhelpful analysis. They have the resources, and the staff, to adequately playtest new rule publications to avoid unnecessarily dense language like this, and should not be excused for failing to do so.
A thing, whether that thing is a feature, item, or spell, only does what it says it does. Nothing more, and nothing less. The Extra Attack feature on someone else's character sheet, especially if it's acquired from a different class, has no bearing on what is on your character sheet. Players do not need to know all the different rules for every option in the game. Neither does the Dungeon Master, for that matter.
THACO worked the way it said it did too. "Overwhelm: You have advantage on attacks made against humanoid creatures that are within 10 feet of two of your allies, but no more than three other enemies, unless those enemies are also enemies of your target" would also be a technically-coherent rule that does what it says. That doesn't mean THACO was easy to understand, or that that Overwhelm would be a well-written rule.
Quit being an apologist for poor playtesting/editing/design.
That's not the point, Jounichi. I guarantee that players are looking at each other's character sheets - and a DM should be encouraging people to familiarize themselves with their fellows' capabilities. You should not be shooting down players getting to know how their party members' abilities work, save that in this case the 'Extra Attack' from Bladesinger does something completely different than the 'Extra Attack' for everybody else.
Whether you believe there's no issue if someone simply tunnel-visions into what's written on their sheet alone doesn't really matter in the broader scope of the rules supposedly being written for everyone. Somebody who plays a Bladesinger one campaign and a Paladin the next will have to wonder why their Extra Attack no longer gives them the cool cantrip thing. An Eldritch Knight playing alongside a Bladesinger will have to wonder why the Bladesinger's extra attacks get to be so much better than the EK's own. Players who simply enjoy the game and read through the books to scope out their options will see several features named the same thing that have completely different effects.
It's simply bad game design. Is it disastrously bad game design, campaign-ruiningly bad game design, or whatever else? No. But that doesn't mean it's not bad design regardless, especially when it's the height of simplicity (and also just more fun) to call the feature 'Fire and Steel' or something similarly evocative.
Let's take a moment and talk about the implications of Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
- Can't cast it with a spell focus, although it's hard to imagine this was ever all that much of a situation before - Can't cast it with many spell-conjured weapons - It probably wasn't designed to prevent most magic weapons, even though many of them don't have a stated value. A +1 longsword is still a longsword after all. - Can't use it with natural weapons - Can't use it with some (?) improvised weapons
Oh god....my Hexblade.
I have Warcaster for obvious reasons with a Hexblade, and also took Booming Blade. I use it in Opportunity Attacks all the time, since EB is at Disadvantage at 5 feet. That is now gone. Are the people at WOTC truly that stupid?
I don't know that Chapter 6 requires you to not have a choice on any given round. Unarmored Defense explicitly tells you that once you get it from one class, you can't get it on your character sheet from a second class, so you aren't deciding moment-to-moment or round-to-round how your AC is being calculated. Extra Attack doesn't tell you that, either within the class descriptions or in Chapter 6. Choosing which Extra Attack to use on any given action is no more forbidden than choosing which Spellcasting feature you're using on any given action. But I believe that there's far fewer signals to players to remind them that they're making a choice when they start their action for Extra Attack than there are normally for Spellcasting (which honestly I already think is too complicated and under-the-hood in how it interacts with the information actually printed on a multiclass character's spell sheet).
It just feels like complexity for the sole sake of saying "no" to something that could have been published as a "yes" without anyone batting their eye. Similar design philosophy feel to EK's having such complicated school restrictions on their spell choices at level up, where they aren't allowed to pick from their entire spell list except at specific levels, creating a bookkeeping hassle for the sole sake of saying "no" to the player who wants to play a Divination-focused EK. There's somebody in the design team who keeps sneaking in with a very oldschool philosophy of "write the rule so that it works for the concept I had in mind, but nothing else," and it pisses me off every time I see it because for the most part 5E isn't supposed to be that way.
Honestly feels more like a quick decision because they did not have another wizard subclass to put out.
Overall hardly anyone will run into the issue as 90% of games end by 10th level and even a smaller fraction of that will pick this specific combo.
The answer is copyright. Melf is a copyrighted character and everything in the basic rules must not fall under copyright for reasons I forgot. Thus, instead of leaving Acid Arrow out of Basic Rules, they just reprinted it without the copyrighted character.
I'm aware of all that. Like I said, I know the history. My point is: why bother with Melf at all in 5e? The base spell covers the entirety of the signature spell with zero mechanical differences. Hell, the base spell is actually available to more classes than the signature one. There's no functional purpose to both existing in this edition; needless bloat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Let's take a moment and talk about the implications of Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
- Can't cast it with a spell focus, although it's hard to imagine this was ever all that much of a situation before - Can't cast it with many spell-conjured weapons - It probably wasn't designed to prevent most magic weapons, even though many of them don't have a stated value. A +1 longsword is still a longsword after all. - Can't use it with natural weapons - Can't use it with some (?) improvised weapons
Oh god....my Hexblade.
I have Warcaster for obvious reasons with a Hexblade, and also took Booming Blade. I use it in Opportunity Attacks all the time, since EB is at Disadvantage at 5 feet. That is now gone. Are the people at WOTC truly that stupid?
This is not a clean rule, and does not conform to 5E's supposed design philosophy. "It's your fault for being confused" is a remarkably tone-deaf and unhelpful analysis. They have the resources, and the staff, to adequately playtest new rule publications to avoid unnecessarily dense language like this, and should not be excused for failing to do so.
A thing, whether that thing is a feature, item, or spell, only does what it says it does. Nothing more, and nothing less. The Extra Attack feature on someone else's character sheet, especially if it's acquired from a different class, has no bearing on what is on your character sheet. Players do not need to know all the different rules for every option in the game. Neither does the Dungeon Master, for that matter.
THACO worked the way it said it did too. "Overwhelm: You have advantage on attacks made against humanoid creatures that are within 10 feet of two of your allies, but no more than three other enemies, unless those enemies are also enemies of your target" would also be a technically-coherent rule that does what it says. That doesn't mean THACO was easy to understand, or that that Overwhelm would be a well-written rule.
Quit being an apologist for poor playtesting/editing/design.
I'm not apologizing for bad anything. Everything I typed out above is true. And none of it is actually hard to grasp; should you learn to tune out the irrelevant noise. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly argued in bad faith. Such as bringing up some obtuse writing by a now-defunct company that has nothing to do with what we're talking about except that Wizard's of the Coast bought up their Intellectual Property during what was functionally an estate sale.
Let's take a moment and talk about the implications of Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
- Can't cast it with a spell focus, although it's hard to imagine this was ever all that much of a situation before - Can't cast it with many spell-conjured weapons - It probably wasn't designed to prevent most magic weapons, even though many of them don't have a stated value. A +1 longsword is still a longsword after all. - Can't use it with natural weapons - Can't use it with some (?) improvised weapons
Oh god....my Hexblade.
I have Warcaster for obvious reasons with a Hexblade, and also took Booming Blade. I use it in Opportunity Attacks all the time, since EB is at Disadvantage at 5 feet. That is now gone. Are the people at WOTC truly that stupid?
The answer is copyright. Melf is a copyrighted character and everything in the basic rules must not fall under copyright for reasons I forgot. Thus, instead of leaving Acid Arrow out of Basic Rules, they just reprinted it without the copyrighted character.
I'm aware of all that. Like I said, I know the history. My point is: why bother with Melf at all in 5e? The base spell covers the entirety of the signature spell with zero mechanical differences. Hell, the base spell is actually available to more classes than the signature one. There's no functional purpose to both existing in this edition; needless bloat.
Because if the monicker suddenly vanished without explanation, players like me who remember the old days would have gone “WTF?!?” I even noticed that Tasha’s Hideous Laughter stopped being “Uncontrollable.” They have old heads to consider when writing these things too.
Let's take a moment and talk about the implications of Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
- Can't cast it with a spell focus, although it's hard to imagine this was ever all that much of a situation before - Can't cast it with many spell-conjured weapons - It probably wasn't designed to prevent most magic weapons, even though many of them don't have a stated value. A +1 longsword is still a longsword after all. - Can't use it with natural weapons - Can't use it with some (?) improvised weapons
Oh god....my Hexblade.
I have Warcaster for obvious reasons with a Hexblade, and also took Booming Blade. I use it in Opportunity Attacks all the time, since EB is at Disadvantage at 5 feet. That is now gone. Are the people at WOTC truly that stupid?
He says Booming Blade still works with Warcaster. He does not say it works with a conjured weapon, which every Hexblade uses until they get a +2 weapon, which might be never.
JC's tweet is an interesting piece in the puzzle of how he understands both spell targeting and range to work in 5E. If Booming Blade remains War Caster eligible, then it must "target only that creature," and not also target any points or areas. And Chapter 10 tells us that wherever we find a target, that "target must be within range." So clearly, JC understands "Self (5 foot radius)" to mean 5 foot range... which means it is still Spell-Sniper-able.
If instead "Self (5 foot)" means self range, then we're left puzzling how it is that the only target of the spell happens to be the creature (outside of the spell's range, in violation of Chapter 10) and not the point (which is within the spell's range and appears to be the legal target).
Or, maybe "5-foot-radius-from-self" is an entirely different thing from "5 foot" range, even though both are drawn in the exact same way on a battle map to cover the same threatened area?
Nothing new than what I said before, but again, just interesting that JC feels these are such simple answers to throw around to complicated questions, when his answers appear to explicitly contradict the written text that he designed.
JC's tweet is an interesting piece in the puzzle of how he understands both spell targeting and range to work in 5E. If Booming Blade remains War Caster eligible, then it must "target only that creature," and not also target any points or areas. And Chapter 10 tells us that wherever we find a target, that "target must be within range." So clearly, JC understands "Self (5 foot radius)" to mean 5 foot range... which means it is still Spell-Sniper-able.
If instead "Self (5 foot)" means self range, then we're left puzzling how it is that the only target of the spell happens to be the creature (outside of the spell's range, in violation of Chapter 10) and not the point (which is within the spell's range and appears to be the legal target).
Or, maybe "5-foot-radius-from-self" is an entirely different thing from "5 foot" range, even though both are drawn in the exact same way on a battle map to cover the same threatened area?
Nothing new than what I said before, but again, just interesting that JC feels these are such simple answers to throw around to complicated questions, when his answers appear to explicitly contradict the written text that he designed.
Yeah sometimes I wish he'd come clean and say something like
"Listen guys, here is what we wanted that spell to accomplish and combine with and here is what we wanted to ban, figure out wording by yourself" xD
JC's tweet is an interesting piece in the puzzle of how he understands both spell targeting and range to work in 5E. If Booming Blade remains War Caster eligible, then it must "target only that creature," and not also target any points or areas. And Chapter 10 tells us that wherever we find a target, that "target must be within range." So clearly, JC understands "Self (5 foot radius)" to mean 5 foot range... which means it is still Spell-Sniper-able.
If instead "Self (5 foot)" means self range, then we're left puzzling how it is that the only target of the spell happens to be the creature (outside of the spell's range, in violation of Chapter 10) and not the point (which is within the spell's range and appears to be the legal target).
Or, maybe "5-foot-radius-from-self" is an entirely different thing from "5 foot" range, even though both are drawn in the exact same way on a battle map to cover the same threatened area?
Nothing new than what I said before, but again, just interesting that JC feels these are such simple answers to throw around to complicated questions, when his answers appear to explicitly contradict the written text that he designed.
Yeah sometimes I wish he'd come clean and say something like
"Listen guys, here is what we wanted that spell to accomplish and combine with and here is what we wanted to ban, figure out wording by yourself" xD
He is like physically incapable of doing this lol...
Let's take a moment and talk about the implications of Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
- Can't cast it with a spell focus, although it's hard to imagine this was ever all that much of a situation before - Can't cast it with many spell-conjured weapons - It probably wasn't designed to prevent most magic weapons, even though many of them don't have a stated value. A +1 longsword is still a longsword after all. - Can't use it with natural weapons - Can't use it with some (?) improvised weapons
Oh god....my Hexblade.
I have Warcaster for obvious reasons with a Hexblade, and also took Booming Blade. I use it in Opportunity Attacks all the time, since EB is at Disadvantage at 5 feet. That is now gone. Are the people at WOTC truly that stupid?
He says Booming Blade still works with Warcaster. He does not say it works with a conjured weapon, which every Hexblade uses until they get a +2 weapon, which might be never.
HE DID say in another tweet, that whe creating a Pact weapon, it is a WEAPON and thus has the value attached to the weapon.
On the other hand things like Shadow blade lets you "weave" shadows into a blade, so there's no value to it.
Let's take a moment and talk about the implications of Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
- Can't cast it with a spell focus, although it's hard to imagine this was ever all that much of a situation before - Can't cast it with many spell-conjured weapons - It probably wasn't designed to prevent most magic weapons, even though many of them don't have a stated value. A +1 longsword is still a longsword after all. - Can't use it with natural weapons - Can't use it with some (?) improvised weapons
Oh god....my Hexblade.
I have Warcaster for obvious reasons with a Hexblade, and also took Booming Blade. I use it in Opportunity Attacks all the time, since EB is at Disadvantage at 5 feet. That is now gone. Are the people at WOTC truly that stupid?
He says Booming Blade still works with Warcaster. He does not say it works with a conjured weapon, which every Hexblade uses until they get a +2 weapon, which might be never.
The entire thing would be less of an issue if the Extra Attack feature did what it always does, and they had given them a separate feature which allowed them to cast a Cantrip and make a single weapon attack as part of the same Action. That way the player still has the exact same choices, the Extra Attack wouldn’t need any special anything, and it would still insulate the whole issue against multiclassing. But what am I saying?!? That would have been too simple. 🙄
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Most people who are pretty comfortable with the rules know that game features with the same name do not combine. For sure, this could confuse newbies, but no more than combining Extra Attack features from different classes did already.
The real issue is that only "the most potent one" actually takes effect. Clearly, the bladesinger's Extra Attack is more potent than any other non-fighter class's. But is (three weapon attacks) more or less potent than (either two weapon attacks or one weapon attack and a cantrip)? The intent is probably to let the player choose, but the rules as written are pretty clear that they don't get to.
A thing, whether that thing is a feature, item, or spell, only does what it says it does. Nothing more, and nothing less. The Extra Attack feature on someone else's character sheet, especially if it's acquired from a different class, has no bearing on what is on your character sheet. Players do not need to know all the different rules for every option in the game. Neither does the Dungeon Master, for that matter.
I don't know that Chapter 6 requires you to not have a choice on any given round. Unarmored Defense explicitly tells you that once you get it from one class, you can't get it on your character sheet from a second class, so you aren't deciding moment-to-moment or round-to-round how your AC is being calculated. Extra Attack doesn't tell you that, either within the class descriptions or in Chapter 6. Choosing which Extra Attack to use on any given action is no more forbidden than choosing which Spellcasting feature you're using on any given action. But I believe that there's far fewer signals to players to remind them that they're making a choice when they start their action for Extra Attack than there are normally for Spellcasting (which honestly I already think is too complicated and under-the-hood in how it interacts with the information actually printed on a multiclass character's spell sheet).
It just feels like complexity for the sole sake of saying "no" to something that could have been published as a "yes" without anyone batting their eye. Similar design philosophy feel to EK's having such complicated school restrictions on their spell choices at level up, where they aren't allowed to pick from their entire spell list except at specific levels, creating a bookkeeping hassle for the sole sake of saying "no" to the player who wants to play a Divination-focused EK. There's somebody in the design team who keeps sneaking in with a very oldschool philosophy of "write the rule so that it works for the concept I had in mind, but nothing else," and it pisses me off every time I see it because for the most part 5E isn't supposed to be that way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
THACO worked the way it said it did too. "Overwhelm: You have advantage on attacks made against humanoid creatures that are within 10 feet of two of your allies, but no more than three other enemies, unless those enemies are also enemies of your target" would also be a technically-coherent rule that does what it says. That doesn't mean THACO was easy to understand, or that that Overwhelm would be a well-written rule.
Quit being an apologist for poor playtesting/editing/design.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's not the point, Jounichi. I guarantee that players are looking at each other's character sheets - and a DM should be encouraging people to familiarize themselves with their fellows' capabilities. You should not be shooting down players getting to know how their party members' abilities work, save that in this case the 'Extra Attack' from Bladesinger does something completely different than the 'Extra Attack' for everybody else.
Whether you believe there's no issue if someone simply tunnel-visions into what's written on their sheet alone doesn't really matter in the broader scope of the rules supposedly being written for everyone. Somebody who plays a Bladesinger one campaign and a Paladin the next will have to wonder why their Extra Attack no longer gives them the cool cantrip thing. An Eldritch Knight playing alongside a Bladesinger will have to wonder why the Bladesinger's extra attacks get to be so much better than the EK's own. Players who simply enjoy the game and read through the books to scope out their options will see several features named the same thing that have completely different effects.
It's simply bad game design. Is it disastrously bad game design, campaign-ruiningly bad game design, or whatever else? No. But that doesn't mean it's not bad design regardless, especially when it's the height of simplicity (and also just more fun) to call the feature 'Fire and Steel' or something similarly evocative.
Please do not contact or message me.
Oh god....my Hexblade.
I have Warcaster for obvious reasons with a Hexblade, and also took Booming Blade. I use it in Opportunity Attacks all the time, since EB is at Disadvantage at 5 feet. That is now gone. Are the people at WOTC truly that stupid?
Honestly feels more like a quick decision because they did not have another wizard subclass to put out.
Overall hardly anyone will run into the issue as 90% of games end by 10th level and even a smaller fraction of that will pick this specific combo.
I doubt we see any clarification on it.
I'm aware of all that. Like I said, I know the history. My point is: why bother with Melf at all in 5e? The base spell covers the entirety of the signature spell with zero mechanical differences. Hell, the base spell is actually available to more classes than the signature one. There's no functional purpose to both existing in this edition; needless bloat.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326598236937674752
It still works with war caster.
I'm not apologizing for bad anything. Everything I typed out above is true. And none of it is actually hard to grasp; should you learn to tune out the irrelevant noise. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly argued in bad faith. Such as bringing up some obtuse writing by a now-defunct company that has nothing to do with what we're talking about except that Wizard's of the Coast bought up their Intellectual Property during what was functionally an estate sale.
And now GFB does, as well. They lose the ability to have their range extended (as far as I can tell), but on balance they're a little more even.
Because if the monicker suddenly vanished without explanation, players like me who remember the old days would have gone “WTF?!?” I even noticed that Tasha’s Hideous Laughter stopped being “Uncontrollable.” They have old heads to consider when writing these things too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
He says Booming Blade still works with Warcaster. He does not say it works with a conjured weapon, which every Hexblade uses until they get a +2 weapon, which might be never.
JC's tweet is an interesting piece in the puzzle of how he understands both spell targeting and range to work in 5E. If Booming Blade remains War Caster eligible, then it must "target only that creature," and not also target any points or areas. And Chapter 10 tells us that wherever we find a target, that "target must be within range." So clearly, JC understands "Self (5 foot radius)" to mean 5 foot range... which means it is still Spell-Sniper-able.
If instead "Self (5 foot)" means self range, then we're left puzzling how it is that the only target of the spell happens to be the creature (outside of the spell's range, in violation of Chapter 10) and not the point (which is within the spell's range and appears to be the legal target).
Or, maybe "5-foot-radius-from-self" is an entirely different thing from "5 foot" range, even though both are drawn in the exact same way on a battle map to cover the same threatened area?
Nothing new than what I said before, but again, just interesting that JC feels these are such simple answers to throw around to complicated questions, when his answers appear to explicitly contradict the written text that he designed.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah sometimes I wish he'd come clean and say something like
"Listen guys, here is what we wanted that spell to accomplish and combine with and here is what we wanted to ban, figure out wording by yourself" xD
He is like physically incapable of doing this lol...
Din't see if anyone talked about it.
But Crawford just confirmed on Twitter that BB and GFB does work with Warcaster.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326595384790056960
Ah shit, just saw this was the discussion topic for at least the last 2 pages, ah well, i will leave it here, easier to see the thing.
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
HE DID say in another tweet, that whe creating a Pact weapon, it is a WEAPON and thus has the value attached to the weapon.
On the other hand things like Shadow blade lets you "weave" shadows into a blade, so there's no value to it.
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Actually he did:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326586049888362496?s=19