The question "does the Shadow Blade have value" shows just how silly some conceptions of value are. The idea a lot of people work with is that things have intrinsic value independent of their uses, and therefore demand. That's nonsense. The question that makes more sense to me is "Does the Shadow Blade have value to someone?" or "Can someone reasonably say 'I would spend a silver piece on this weapon'?" to which the obvious answer is "yes, in the right context." Now, a shop might assign a great value to it before they know it disappears and zero value to it once they know it disappears since they can't resell it (another example of how silly the idea of intrinsic value is for material items). Most importantly, whoever is using the shadow blade would surely, reasonably assign a value to it while using it (I assume you can hand the blade off to someone and not violate the "if it's dropped/thrown, it returns" clause). A better way to answer the value of the blade itself is to ask if the caster would be willing to pay the 1 silver piece to create the blade. The answer is clearly yes whether the caster uses it or someone else does. Would the recipient of the blade be willing to pay another silver piece to continue using it? Of course! The shadow blade is worth at least 1 silver piece.
I actually think the rules on TWF are clear. "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you gain a bonus action you can use to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.' This means that if you use the attack action and attack with a weapon it gives you this bonus action. If you attack with two weapons in different hands, they would both grant you this bonus action. You may only take one of them, since you are limited on the number of bonus actions you may take per turn.
So in his example Booming blade with short sword / Shadow Blade / Shadow Blade won't work because in the second attack he's using Shadow Blade, then the following bonus action attack uses the same hand (Shadow Blade). Could he go Shadow Blade / Booming short sword / Shadow Blade?
@@Charles-ij1ow No it works, When you attack with the Short Sword you gain a bonus action that you can use to attack with the Shadow Blade. Nothing says you need to use that bonus action immediately.
@Remy B “you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.” Specific vs general I think it’s meant to be taking the attack action with 1 weapon specifically grants you a bonus action for another weapon.
Too often Crawford is like a newspaper Horoscope. He says something vague and let's people interpret it how they feel when people are looking for an official ruling and its super frustrating. Given that Tasha's is basically a book of "Here are a bunch of house rules that you should be using already but don't because they aren't 'RAW' so you are scared to try", not being clear on this is silly. Given that if a character is going to use Shadowblade they likely will want to use GFB or BB, when they changed those cantrips they should have foreseen this.
They absolutely should have. Also if they didn't want people to use a focus with booming blade all they needed to do was delete 'M' from the components line.
I remember the good ol tiems when there was a difference betwen a "amterial component" and a "focus" GFB and BB clearly need a "weapon focus", a metrial component that is never consumend and can never be replaced by a "spellcasting focus" and that sitn present ina component pich. the SP cost is ceraly a badly thought out way to make it "more ligical" within the cosntraints of Spellcasting foci and component puches. abetter solution would have been to get rid of the material component adn add a "as part of casting the spell you make a melee weapon attack with a melee weapon you are wielding."
I think another thing to mention is that even if this build worked smoothly in the rules, it's still very bonus action heavy. Bladesong, shadow blade AND two weapon fighting are all bonus actions, so you won't even be able to make the bonus action attack until round 3, which in some cases the combat is already over.
I've been having so much fun with my Bladesinger since the class was released in SCAG. Playing her as a Red Mage from Final Fantasy. Thanks for the video
After our initial convo on Twitter and reading the TWF rules again, I was also thinking something along the lines of the trigger being just one of the attacks made as part of the Attack action , but I didn't go down the route of trying to give a monetary valuation to Shadowblade's effect of creating an actual weapon with which you can attack. Great video, I will most likely use this in my Tasha's Updates videos because you explained everything better than I ever would, seeing how English is still my 2nd language.
While I confess that I can't claim this is the only interpretation, my interpretation has always been that phrases like "counts as" mean to treat it as if it were so in mechanical terms. For example, sneak attacks and disadvantage: "You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll." "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them" - I consider this to mean that a rogue can sneak attack while they have disadvantage if the rogue *also* has advantage and has an ally within 5 feet of the target. Since the rogue is not "considered" to have advantage or disadvantage when having both, then sneak attack should still be possible. Hence, I think the phrase "It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient" should mean that the Shadow Blade counts as a simple weapon. Note that it doesn't count as just a weapon, but specifically a "simple" weapon. "Simple" refers to the weapons table, on which we can see that all simple weapons have a value to them. If those weapons have value, then the Shadow Blade should be considered to have value whether it does in actuality or not.
I sort of feel like this video was pointless for exactly what you point out. It counts as the thing required for the spell/TWF. It sort of felt like this video keeps trying to pick at things that don't have any problems.
@@shawnmayo8210 while I wish that were the case, some 5e players and DMs are litigious as fuck. For example, if you use a weapon to make a ranged weapon attack, does that weapon count as a ranged weapon for the purpose of making said ranged weapon attack? No, not according to Crawford or a majority of the online 5e community. Reactions, spell targets, the definition of what "when" means, etc. are all argued to death. What does it mean that your position is "revealed" when you make an attack while insivible, and are you still revealed if you move without first hiding? No one knows, ask your DM. It's actually really, really hard to say anything definitive about 5e's rules in some cases.
@@stranger6822 this definitely a case of people choosing to ignore words to say it's not clear when it's very clear. Thrown weapon properties answer your question.
@@shawnmayo8210 then take stealth and illusions as examples when the rules are deliberately vague to encourage DM interpretation. There's quite a lot of that in 5e. And I don't hold it against anyone if they can't remember or haven't read every single word.
it was just stupid to require a cost for the weapon, if they just said that the material component was a weapon with which you were proficient(or some such) it wouldn't matter. like why does it have to cost money? also, it would be hilarious to be a bladesinger with tavern brawler using green flame blade with a broken bottle.
Interesting. They really could have solved this issue by making the shadow blade have a physical weapon as a material component and then both booming blade and Shadow Blade both can use your one weapon and solve the entire problem.
yea your change takes away from the spirit of the spell. You manifest the weapon from illusion magic. what your talking about is basically a transmutation spell
@@zhangbill1194 possibly. That works though doing it the way I suggest provides a basis for more weapon focused spells and not just cantrips we mostly have. I think there is a conceptual space for that not just with blade singer and the quarter casters.
@@leodouskyron5671 But one of the cool parts of Shadow Blade is it's the perfect infiltration weapon, or you can use it when you are stripped off all your gear. Honestly, just errata the Cantrips (because those just changed) or Shadowblade's description too say they work with them, then it's problem solved.
I agree using curses on enemies is very desireable so curses have alot of value. Not sure how it's in 5e but in previous editions you could craft cursed items on purpose and there was a table with special cursed items and their value there were cursed items with value over 100.000gp with devastating effects. Just take the Scarab of Death which kills you instantly if you hold it for more than 1 round or keep it on your body for longer than 1 minute. A nice DC25 reflex save or instant death as it burrows into your body straight into your heart. Placing the scarab in a container of wood, ceramic, bone, ivory, or metal prevents the monster from coming to life and allows for long-term storage of the item. So you can carry it around with you then mage hand it to an easy to spot place and watch enemies kill themselfs when they pick it up. 80.000 GP for an infinitely reuseable instant death effect? Yes please!
Thank you for the time you put into this research, as a DM, I agree with your conclusion: just allow it and spare yourself headaches. Plus, if you think about it, 5e character dmg output can already be OP without this trick, so in most cases we are just discussing about the size of an overkill margin. :D
All you gotta do is sell your Shadow Blade to a party member for one silver piece before it disappears. Youve now established that it has a value of one silver piece. Seems silly. But what happens if you try to sell the dagger you have been using to do these cantrips, and a shop npc refuses and calls it worthless? Does the spell not work next time you use it?
I think, even if the "different from each weapon used in the Attack Action" interpretation is technically legitimate, it's kind of contradicting the fiction a little bit. I don't know of anyone playing a two-weapon fighter who's visualizing doing several attacks with their primary weapon and then following up with a single off-hand bonus attack. It works pre-Extra Attack, but once you have that and TWF style, especially the fighter's Extra Extra Attack, it gets weird. I feel like most people are visualizing "right left right" or "right left right left" and I don't want to tell them that they're wrong for arbitrary mechanical reasons.
I visualize it more as using your off-hand blade as a parrying weapon, making multiple stabs and slashes with your primary weapon, then sliding in that extra weapon under their guard. So, right, right, left with extra attack.
Thanks! I'd seen these rulings separately but how they interacted was not something I had considered since I don't normally dual wield with my bladesinger.
One thing these videos really show is that thanks to the ease of contacting the rules teams for the games that we play, any RAW vs RAI debates can quickly be answered. While it's not 100% clear i nthis case, the fact that we can so easily reach out to the rules teams of the Tabletop Games we play is fantastic for DMs and Players.
That would be the case if the developers were actually clear in their answers. Unfortunately oftentimes you can’t tell if an answer is RAW, RAI, how they would rule as DM, or just what they think should happen.
This is why the game has to have a DM. The designers can't possibly anticipate every possible rules interaction, and if they did the rules would be too unwieldly to use.
I feel that this interaction should have been expected though. -designer sees that gishes are very popular. -designer creates a melee cantrip that dramatically increases casters melee damage to support them. -designer creates a spell that also dramatically increases caster's martial effectiveness. -designer does not see these gish keystones interacting?
@@elliotbryant3459 It's not just that though. It's those spells existing + a wording change affecting how they interact + the new bladesinger wizard ability + two weapon fighting.
@@zackglenn2847 the first point is an obvious interaction though. (much like twinning and the war caster opportunity attack now being out by RAW due to the range of self) -But ya, the other 2 abilities do compound things. TWF is just so poorly worded, it’s like they wrote it before deciding extra attack was going to be a thing. And the bladesinger ability is kind of unprecedented in its bypassing of the action economy.
Sorry, this one wasn’t a massive leap in imagination. It was clear these spells weee going to interact and they literally just changed the cantrips and the subclass that will use Shadow Blade. Just add another line saying the material component for the cantrips is a weapon worth 1sp OR a conjured weapon solves the issue.
@@andrewshandle There are over 500 spells in DnD, with 13 classes each with multiple subclasses. If they spent the time going through all of that with the fine-toothed comb it would take to catch every time 5 different rules interact in a weird way, they would never finish it. Also, if they said "or a conjured weapon", then a focus would still fulfill the requirement and the original problem would persist.
"clearly the designer could not have anticipated that six years later we would have a situation..." But they could have future proofed it better. Or at all. By making the "attack with a different weapon as a part of your action" a clear distinction in Two-Weapon fighting. "If you are wielding two different weapons in your hands, when you take the attack action, you can attack with either weapon, but the total number of attack you can make does not change. You add your ability modifier to the damage rolls of either weapon. However, if both separate weapons have teh "light" property, you can make an additional weapon attack with your bonus action, using either weapon. This is referred to as "Two-Weapon Fighting", and you do not add your ability modifier to the damage roll you make if you hit this bonus action." Yes, this is also cheeseable, because you pick up an amazing versatile weapon, like a flametongue, add a dagger into your other hand and you suddenly make another 1d8+2d6 damage as your bonus action. But it ca nbe regulated through weapon drops and bonus action usage. If I can come up with a simple solution like this in 2 minutes, why would it be unreasonable to expect something better than this from paid designers over 2 years, instead of something worse?
Or at the very least, why can’t the developers just retroactively fix the rules via errata, instead of spending their time “fixing” GFB/BB which nobody asked for.
@@M0ebius I have no idea about how they decide what to fix, they manage to find QOL things (PAM working with staves but not spears was fixed in an errata), but at the same the other half is such a miss.
It's a bit unfair to expect the designers from 2012 onward (or whenever most of 5e was initially written) to future proof designs for weird changes (like BB and GFB to suddenly require a weapon with monetary value) that would come 7+ years later. Two-Weapon Fighting is worded wierdly, but it's actually very clear that you can't simply attack with the same weapon again, thus the name and the requirement to actually have a weapon in each hand. I've never actually encounted anyone think or argue otherwise (and I play with a lot of newbies in an online Adventurers League).
@@Nr4747 Okay, first off, rephrasing then. What I meant by "attack with a diferent weapon", was not the bonus action attack. But the extra attack. If I have 2 weapons and have the extra attack, this is the first time I heard that I can determine which weapon to attack with, without TWF. The rules are this jumlbed. If I am a level 5 fighter with an axe and a sword with no feat, I always thought I can only do sword-sword or axe-axe. I had no reason to even think about doing a sword-axe attack. Clarifyign this part in the TWF section would have been great. So no, I dont think it is unreasonable to expect future proofing from designers who get paid to write rules like this. 1) clarify if you are wielding multiple weapons, and just your action allows you to take multiple attacks, you can use whichever weapon for whichever attack of that action 2) if that allows you to use your BA for TWF, make up a rule that will work with all combinations implyied in 1).
@@texteel Ah, okay, my bad, I completely misunderstood what you meant (if that's your fault or mine doesn't matter, imho). Yeah, they never clarified that part. For me, it was always clear that you could choose either weapon in such a case - why wouldn't/shouldn't you be able to ? The bonus action attack is just in addition to that. So yes, you absolutely should be allowed to choose to go axt-sword or sword-axe or axe-axe etc.
Lets go over the stated requirements one by one. I do think all the requirements are objectively satisfied: 1- You took an attack action 2- You attacked with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand (a short sword) 3- You attack with a different light melee weapon in the other hand (shadow blade) using a bonus action If it said "When you make all your attacks during an attack action using the same weapon[...]" then it would be a different story. But is says "if you attack with", which evidently means something different from "if you make every attack with". I actually don't think there is room for interpretation on that point. It's a binary statement. You either made an attack with it or you didn't. Since you did make an attack with that weapon, it is irrelevant wether you also attacked with another weapon. (Note that 2 technically doesn't even specify that the attack must be part of the previously mentioned attack action. Not that this changes anything, it works either way, but it is interesting to me.)
Hmm... I don't think I agree with your idea that the shadowblade itself lacks a value. Ask yourself "Would the common adventurer pay more than 1 silver to have this blade for a minute?" If the answer is yes, then the blade is worth 1 silver. Value doesn't have to come from directly trading the item with another person. For example. We can't really sell our hands, but noone would argue that our hands have no value. That is because they provide us with certain abilities. So if someone were to "steal" our hands, we would demand compensation based on the value placed upon hands by society. You say that "You not being frightened" doesn't have value, but it does. The value you place on not being frightened is exactly what informs the value of the spellslots used to cast calm emotions. Why do spell slots have value? Because of the potential benefits they grant you, not because they can be directly traded as an item. THe exact same logic applies to the shadowblade, it grants you potential and abilities, so it has value.
Yeah, but how about the Thunder Gauntlets for the Armourer Artificer? does it work becouse the gauntlet is part of the armour and the armour have value? or the Warlock pact weapon? or the Psychic Blades of the Soulknife Rogue?
Yes on all except for Psychic blades. I assume "a weapon costing at least 1sp" means a "real" weapon made out of matter and not some magic tought construct.
I'd say it's RAW already. - When you take the Attack Action: That condition is obviously fulfilled - and Attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand: This condition is also fulfilled. You did attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to do that for all attacks or even in the attack action. For it not to work it would have needed to be worded like: in which you use a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand for each attack. I know that you can intepret this sentence differently, but that is if you put intent into that sentence and read between the lines. The "and" splits the sentence into two conditions, which act seperately. This would be my take on this.
I think it comes down to whether you'd allow a player wielding two light weapons to attack with each one once as part of an Attack action with Extra Attack getting their ability mod added to damage for each and then choose to use either as their bonus action attack without the ability mod. If yes, then this should work. If you see it as a main hand/off hand scenario, where the attack and extra attack have to be with the same weapon and the bonus action attack with a different one, then no, this wouldn't work. I personally see it like this: If casting a cantrip that includes an attack as part of the spell doesn't count as an attack to invoke the bonus action off hand attack, I would say the trigger is the actual attack made with the Attack action, not the cantrip cast in place of one of the attacks you take with the Attack action. Considering that the attack is part of a spell casting, and only available if you are already using the Attack action to make a standard attack, there is no reason to give it priority as the trigger for two weapon fighting.
If your DM doesn't let you use Booming Blade w/ Shadow Blade I don't see how it's possible to use Booming Blade on your shortsword with a Shadow Blade in the other hand. Wont you not be able to fulfill the somatic component of Booming Blade w/ your hands full? You could drop the shadow blade I suppose, but then you'd be forced to use your BA next round to make it reappear.
If a spell has a material component and a somatic component then the same hand can be used for both. Meaning the hand holding the weapon worth 1 sp also performs the somatic component.
Yo, just using a regular non-magical rapier with spirit shroud you can get the same damage numbers as shadow blade plus it works with green flame blade for the bladesinger level 6 ability by RAW and impedes a little bit of nearby enemy movement speed. Can choose from 3 damage types for it as well when you cast which is good adaptability. Only thing you lose is the advantage in dim light or darkness.
I kind of just don't like the implications of not allowing this as it pertains to two weapon fighting + extra attack in general. If you were to not allow the bonus action attack because you used two different weapons during extra attack, then TWF fighters would be in a weird spot. A 20th level fighter would have to make all 4 Extra Attacks with the same weapon in order to use their bonus action attack? That's silly.
Would you say this TWF strategy is worth it over using Flaming Sphere, considering Flaming Sphere can be annoying to manage but also incentives the proc of booming blade?
I think I'd change the Shadowblade spell. If you don't have a weapon it summons one for you like the spell originally says. Instead of having the spell create a weapon made of shadow it summons an actual, physical weapon that's infused with shadow magic, The Shadowblade, that has the properties laid out in the spell. That way you could use the material value for that weapon type (shortsword, etc.) from the PHB for Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. IMO the spell was created initially to work for full spellcasters who aren't likely to have a sword handy if things go wrong and they need to go melee. The thing is with Bladesinger and other gish builds that doesn't work. They don't need to create a sword if they already have one. For them I'd add a further amendment to the spell that says that if you do have a weapon you can cast the spell onto that weapon sort of like an arcane version of the Holy Weapon spell. I think that would solve the issues the changes to the Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade cantrips created while still letting you use Shadowblade on an existing weapon. That way you wouldn't have to deal with the whole two weapon fighting thing (unless you want to use TWF).
Is it super suboptimal to predominately go Bladesinger but do a 3 level dip into Artificer to get Battle Smith so that your weapon bonuses are based on Int?
I just assumed that the devs did this on purpose because they didn't want people being too dependent on shadow blade being combined with booming blade/green-flame blade so it was intended. Personally, I don't even mind it because there are a lot of other interesting options.
Yep. In AL the combo never exists because characters are limited to PHB and 1 other book and Shadowblade and GFB & BB are from 2 different books. Prohibiting the combo seems the clear intent of the rule change.
The new version of the cantrips have heaps of problems. For example, how is the value of a weapon determined? If someone sells a version of that weapon below the atated price, does it disqualify the weapon permenantly? Is it based on an average of pricing? If so how does the spell keep updated? Could a kingdom realize that if it outlaws the sale of weapons and instead it must be through exchange does it destroy this spell? Does the spell continue as long as any kingdom uses currency for the item, and if so how big does the kingdom have to be before its just one person determining the value? What about fiat currency for mineral poor kingdoms or shells from barter cultures, thise aren't coins so rules as written cant be used. Frankly it doesnt make any sense and all the changes to the spell are pretty much to eliminate obscure edge cases probably just so they can claim they didnt just reprint the spell but "updated" it for pr reasons. Bit of a pessimists take I admit but the problems and restrictions the new versions put in while contributing nothing just feels bad.
Does stealing anything in your world permanently change the value to 0 cp, as you technically acquired the item for 0 cp? No, it doesn't change it. Does sharpening your longsword make it do d12 damage? No, it doesn't. Does your wizard with a though build and who used to eat small doses of poisonous mushrooms get to use a d8 hit die or have poison resistance? No, they don't. Item value is just another game mechanic, it's determined by the rule book and you should just accept it as such, the game doesn't give you specific amounts of spell materials it just says "whatever worth x gp" and the quantity is gonna vary from world to world. And that's fine, because having a general value for items it's a good shorthand for the game, and makes balancing costs easier(Not that the dnd team is particularly good at it, mind you). I hate the concept of having RAW or RAI, as one of the other games WotC makes(MTG) has a fully grokable rule system, that works with no interpretation required, while having 20k+ different game pieces. But when something is as clear as Item value, It's not the designer's fault that you want to be stubborn and not just use the text written in the book.
@@PAPP0NE it's more an issue that it's a very basic economical idea that if you're the only one selling something, people will have to pay what you're charging. Hence this always comes up if someone is trying to figure out how to optimize a character that uses something that requires a monetary thing of value, that whole idea of how can I get this thing for less than it's is? I am unsure why they do not just give spells normal measurements like is used in cooking or chemistry... this just seems so much more needlessly complicated and brings up a whole plethora of unneeded and easily avoidable questions.
@@winterfreyja5494 Have fun discussing with your dm the definitions of the unit for length/weight/times in their world. Highly doubtful that the anybody in your low-tech medieval fantasy world with magic, knows the precise speed of light or the plank constant or what cesium-133 even is, and if they can't measure it like that, in a completely abstract way, how do we know that 1hr duration or 1 pound of salt is what it says in the book? Adding pointless IRL mechanics to your game is gonna bog it down and make it less fun. And yes the whole point is that you want to bargain and get something for less than is worth(As in the arbitrary monetary value assigned by the book, as a shorthand to make balancing costs easier) or that if you have complete control of the supply you can raise the price to more that what the item is worth(As in the arbitrary monetary value assigned by the book, as a shorthand to make balancing costs easier) or that if nobody wants to buy that item an NPC would me more willing to sell something for less than it is worth(As in the arbitrary monetary value assigned by the book, as a shorthand to make balancing costs easier)
The point of the change to not allow you to sub out the material component. JC explicitly said the change did not keep you from combining SH and BB and was never intended to do that. His tweet clarified if another spell cares about the value to can assign one from the PHB. RAI it works and I would think RAW it works. I think the rules lawyers (myself included) got way to bound up and talked each other into this combo not working.
I dont see any issue with " It counts as a simple melee weapon " and every simple melee weapon has a value of at least one silver piece ; basically what Jeremy said.
I would argue that the gold value of a spell component doesn't necessarily represent how much you spent, or would spend, on the item, but the intrinsic quality of the item. For example: Say you rolled low on an insight check and bought a pearl the size of a crumb for 100g. You could technically say that you bought a pearl worth 100g, but it wouldn't be a viable component for the Identify spell. So, in my opinion, I think the question we should be asking is: "What level of quality, as a weapon, is the Shadow Blade?"
Player’s response: it cost me 50gp in inks and materials to scribe the shadow blade spell, so that’s 49 gold+ more cost than I need. It’s silly for WOTC to use something as useless as the perception of “value” as a material component. If I use a rusty blade that I pick up off the dungeon floor for free, does BB fizzle because the weapon used was free? Or, does BB fizzle because the closest merchant would not give me more than 6 copper for it currently because the sword market is currently down?
you can attack three times. using action and extra attack and bonus action. the two weapon fighting uses a bonus action and is triggered by using the attack action only.. not the extra attack(this is considered as an extra attack only and not another action in your turn). . the extra attack does not trigger a bonus action. even if it does(but it doesnt) but lets say some rule specifies that you can trigger it using extra attack....you can only do 1 bonus action per turn anyway. you can do "extra attack" or "attack using your action" in any order you like.. but the "bonus action attack" is only triggered if you used the action on your turn as an attack using a melee weapon. so summary you can attack three times, action, extra attack and bonus action.
Super late to the party, but I found this video because I'm building a bladesinger to do this exact thing and, regarding Two Weapon Fighting, I think it's important to step back from all the litigation and consider that maybe Two Weapon Fighting was ONLY worded in the noodly way it was because the point is simply to prevent characters from doing something like holding a shadow blade in one hand, a dagger in the other and being able to attack three times with shadow blade, just because they were holding another pokey thing. How much does it really matter if someone performs a booming blade/shadow blade combo on their action, then shadow blades on their bonus action, versus two shadow blade attacks and a scimitar swipe? With the significant investments of Two Weapon Fighting Style, +5 Dex or Str, and a third level slot and a bonus action spent on shadow blade, the difference in damage on the second round, assuming the enemy triggers the extra booming blade damage and *all* attacks land, is 45.5 average damage vs 57 average damage. If you don't have the creativity or foresight to deal with something like that as a DM, you should probably not be a DM just yet. And if you just plain think that's too much damage, then ffs just give your enemies a little more hit points or something so your player can feel awesome without breaking the game, it's not rocket science. Let players be awesome when they invest in the ability to be awesome. There's a lot one gives up just to be able to do this specific thing, especially as a wizard.
Could a Scribe wizard change the damage time of shadow blade for the entire duration of the spell? Upcast shadow blade to 7th level and have pick prismatic spray your shadow blade could be a lightning blade, flame, acid, poison, cold. 😅
I think it all depends on how you rule the use of the booming blade/ green flame blade cantrips... To my limited knowledge, cantrips count as casting a spell and not using the attack action? So even though the two specific cantrips make weapon attacks, they are spells. Hence why Tasha's reworded the multiattack feature for the bladesinger to include allowing the use of a cantrip for one attack specifically. Otherwise any arcane dipped fighter would be able to use booming blade and still get their extra attack. So if you shadowblade attack, then cantrip attack with the normal weapon, does that attack count as a spell being cast or a regular attack? My thinking says spell, and that's how I would rule it, but your DM may see it different.
Now on a similar topic regarding the Bladesinger I would love your opinion on Haste and the Extra Attack feature with Booming Blade. As I read it you get 2 booming blade attacks and one normal attack on the same turn and that's quite useful as it ups the offensive value of haste while boosting mobility and defense.
@@bencoltman6646 Haste does in fact give give you another literal attack action even though the spell limits the amount of attacks you can do with it. The Extra Attack feature on Bladesinger let's you swap out one of the those attacks for a cantrip. So in the General nothing prohibits it except that you rarely if ever get extra actions that can be used for spells. But this feature from the bladesinger is worded so that it does in fact allow you to swap one of any attacks in the attack action for a cantrip. So if you have 2 attack actions you can cast 2 booming blade. This makes Haste IMO really good and useful as it improves both offense, defense ans maneuverability 😁
@@Viryn Interesting, you are in theory correct. I think it would be up to the DM though which of those was the specific and which was the general rule, so I don't think that's an interaction you could rely on working at most tables.
What do you think of shadow blade for the true arcane trickster build you made (illusion mage) ? I consider it in replacement of darkvision because I have it from my race.
Don’t you love that we have to have the conversations now because something that was working fine was changed? Even if a player tried to cast one of the blade cantrips with a component pouch I’d just rule that they make an unarmed strike and apply the effect to it, it’s not a world shaking problem the rules had to be rewritten to solve.
Just because you can make a ruling to fix something does not mean it's not broken. Lots of people thought the beastmaster ranger was trash, and lots of those people probably homebrewed a new one, that doesn't mean that it wasn't worthwhile to have a new one come out that was RAW. As for the magnitude of the problem, there's other people in the comments saying that they should've thought about this in the first place, so clearly people care about minutia.
look im just saying if i summon a shadow blade and walk into a store and ask a shop keep how much he would pay for it and he says x amount and doesn't know its a "fake" sword im counting that as having value.
@@Faircrow correct, you can do the somatic component with the hand holding the material. You need a free hand for somatic if the spell does not have a material component.
I hope that more care is taken with 6e whenever that comes out. This shouldn't even need to be a conversation. However, problems like this and the whole "holding a magical shield is all you need to grant the AC bonus" ruling do not fill me with hope :/.
Wouldn’t using Shadowblade in your offhand resolve this problem? It may not be the most ideal but if you are using a short sword/dagger in your main hand you would get: Attack Action: Cantrip: Booming blade with Short sword 2nd attack: short sword with PB Bonus Action: Offhand attack with Shadow blade It may not be 100% optimized but this removes and argument about rules and you still are giving those fighters a melee run for their money at 6th :)
i think i have the fix for this problem make a miniature weapon of 1 sp has the spell component then voila 2 cantrips solve cause u can put the miniature in the second weapon i dont know if that makes sense cause english is not my strong language
Rules of Crawford was that he would allow Shadow blade to work with bb and gfb. For what that's worth. I don't understand why you would two weapon fight as a bladesinger to begin with but you do you. Also, it's debatable how useful shadow blade is for a bladesinger. Arcane trickster, yes. Bladesinger... iunno. 2d8(?)+dex+int for however long it lasts is nice, but is it worth a spell slot?
I still don’t understand how the attack with Booming Blade is considered an attack action since it is casting a spell. Please help me understand where I’m messing up. Thx.
It’s the blade singer feature. They make an **Attack Action** and as part of that **Attack Action** they can cast a spell. In this case, the spell we choose is booming blade, which allows us to make a melee weapon attack.
I took it for granted that booming blade and green flame blade required a weapon with a material cost in TCE. However, my copy only says a weapon. Is there more than one version of TCE?
Sometimes diving into the rules in this way is just silly. It's giving power to the designers as if they really, truly intend for this to be a balanced game, which they do not.
4:40 - Even if Jeremy doesn't say that RAW allow it, they actually do. Shadowblade creates a "sword of solidified gloom", so the blade is physical and very real. Now, if it counts as a simple melee weapon, then it has a value superior to 1 SP. It wouldn't make sense for a magically created sword to be worth less than a Club. TBH, that's the problem with "value" in material components. If you want to be very realistic in your game, weapons might have different values in different cities, just as IRL things have different values depending on where you go. There's no reason why a DM wouldn't recognize at least a value higher than 1 SP to a Shadowblade
You can't sell a Shadowblade though, so it really has zero value. They idea that they use the sell value of items is very silly in general, but it is what it is. ;)
@@andrewshandle Actually, you can. If you trick someone who has no arcane knowledge, you could in theory sell it. Of course the blade would disappear a short time after, but you could sell it, so it has a value
@@k-p116 You have under one minute to negotiate a deal and within six seconds of handing it over it disappears, so not really. So "hey, can I see it?" followed by "Let me take a look at it" would see it disappear.
@@andrewshandle With high deception you could negotiate money first and blade later. Then make a run for it. So yeah, selling it is possible. And if it counts as a simple melee weapon, then it has a value
@@k-p116 You seem to be confused was "value" is. If a wizard goes outside and finds a tiny pebble on the road and casts an illusion on it that makes it look like a gem. If they then go sell that gem for 100gp, it doesn't have a value of 100gp, it's still worth nothing. Tricking someone into buying an item doesn't change the value of that item. Oh, and I imagine most D&D worlds with magic would have laws against selling an illusionary item and running out of the store within 6 seconds of handing it over which would still make the item useless (and worth nothing) and the player a criminal. So no, you can't sell a Shadow Blade as an item.
3:40 "then clearly not all weapons have value" i dont get why youre interpreting it like this, by RAW that would mean that explicitly the shadow blade does have value.
I may be wrong but it would be: Attack Action - Shadow Blade Spellcasting Action - cantrip So you won't actually even be using an attack action per say with the non-shadowblade weapon. Extra Attack TCE p76 Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can *cast* one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks. As the Shadowblade is a light weapon you could do: Attack Action- Shadowblade Spellcasting Action- cantrip Bonus Action- Two-weapon fighting with the weapon you used for the cantrip
But that cantrip is part of the attack action, it isn't a separate action on your turn. You are: 1 taking the attack action, 2 casting a cantrip, and 3 making an attack with a light weapon. It satisfies all of the requirements for 2 weapon fighting. If you did this outside of the attack action for bladesingers it wouldn't work, but this is a specific exception to a general rule.
@@vitalem4 Actually the specific rule here is the allowance to cast instead of extra attack, with normally is not allowed. The fact that you are now allowed to cast does not change the action type. *Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.* Still using the Cast. But it still just my interpretation of how it is written, and until a clarification or Sage is released it won't be more than that.
That last bit is what I had missed as well until you pointed it out. I thought "you have to take the attack action to get the bonus action attack, but you have to take the spellcasting action to cast a cantrip, so why is this even a discussion?" But you're right - once they get extra attack, bladesingers can cast one cantrip as part of their attack action instead of making one of their attacks. They have taken the Attack action, and their training has allowed them to take a specific Spellcasting action as a sub-element of the Attack action they are taking. But the overall action is still Attack, so they can do the bonus action attack.
Anyone have a citation on the ability of a character to make the Extra attack with the offhand weapon. My understanding is that the Attack action attack and Extra attacks all have to come from the main hand and the bonus action attack is from the offhand.
Obviously I'm just using mainhand v offhand as shorthand, so to speak. Attack action comes from one weapon in one hand and bonus action attack from a different weapon in the other hand. But where does it say that the extra attack can come from either hand/weapon?
@@fortunatus1 Usually I'm not fond of the "it doesn't say that you can't" explanation for rules interpretation, but that's the case here. None of the rules for the Attack action, for making an attack in general or Extra Attack say that you can't use different weapons for multiple attacks.
@@Laukaus11 The more I think about it, the more I conclude that this is expressly prohibited. Two Weapon Fighting rule begins with "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand". The Extra Attack is part of the Attack action and it explicitly states "that you're holding in one hand". Moreover, if you're making the Attack and Extra Attack with the weapons in both your hands then the "different weapon" requirement for the bonus action attack from two weapon fighting is not satisfied.
@@fortunatus1 You can. RAW It disappears if you drop it or throw it, not if you give it to someone else. Since you can use it as throwing weapon, it makes sense that you could concentrate and keep it in existence while someone else is wielding it. Realistically, imagine yourself in this situation: as a warrior, you are offered a sword for one battle, but the sword weighs practically nothing and cuts better than giants greatsword. Would you pay for such weapon? Knights used lances in combat and oeople pay for perishables all the time. Given it's perishable nature, I would say it has value only in combat, so the combo would work only in combat.
@@PiiskaJesusFreak You know that you're just making this up to get the result you want. No one will buy a sword that disappears for them in 6 seconds. It's made of shadows not steel. It's has no value because shadows have no value.
@@fortunatus1 I would not buy a sword that lasts for 6 seconds, but I would buy a sword that lasts a minute if it is absurdly powerful like this one is. It's not steel, it's something much better! It's cuts soul instead of flesh wounds creatures impervious to steel! In dim light it's practically invisible and almost impossible to block. And it killing power puts many magical treasures and even some artifacts to shame! In real world we pay for perishable items like food. We pay for intangible things like roller coaster rides, Netflix subscriptions, stocks, applications and fishing rights. In cloud computing industry, we pay for seconds of computing time. People pay for much less tangible and much shorter lived things than soul cutting monster killing shadows. Of course, my interpretation relies on the interpretation that giving shadow blade to someone does not count as dropping it or throwing it. A reasonable dm might rule that it does, but equally reasonable dm could deciced that it does not.
@@PiiskaJesusFreak The range/area of the spell is Self so I disagree that a reasonable DM could rule that you can hand it off to another person. And it says that if you drop it or throw it, it disappears... you cannot hand it off to another person/trade it, then it has no tangible value.
The casting of Green Flame Blade or Booming Blade is not an attack action, unless you're using the Bladesinger's rule that allows you to replace one of your attacks during the attack action once you gain the extra attack action. However, if you use your shortsword to make your attack action, and substitute a casting of Booming Blade as one of the attacks within that attack action, then you can use your bonus action to make a weapon attack with your Shadow Blade. Frankly I don't know why they bothered changing the rules to make it more specific. The spells already stated that you had to make a melee weapon attack to trigger the Blade spells, and it's quite obvious you can't make a melee weapon attack with a component pouch or arcane focus.
Two weapon fighting ia really simple. You do your attack action with one weapon only. Doesn't matter how many times you are allowed to make an attack during your attack action - it is still only one action. Then you are allowed to attack with a different weapon on your bonus action. So you take the attack action, you attack twice with the shortword in your right hand. And then as the bonus action you can attack once with the dagger in your left hand. The rules are worded correct and there is no room for interpretation. You are just mixing the attack action with multiple attacks during the said attack action. The attack action reads: "The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists." The fighters multiple attack feature reads: "You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." The two weapon fighting reads: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand." Switching weapons during the attack action is all you guys' wishful thinking.
That's just wilful reading. Bonus action attack can ONLY be made with your offhand weapon. Since your main weapon attack was with shadowblade, you're going to be using the weapon in your offhand as the bonus action attack. You can be fluid with what you consider your main weapon and offhand though, as there's literally nothing that rules that they have to be static. I allow my players to decide when attacking which one will be their main and their offhand, depending on which one they attack with first.
I get where a lot of people are coming from, but amongst my small circle, this was what pushed both of these spells into the garbage bin after a long while of them having situational uses, Booming Blade ESPECIALLY. Shadow blade is a Nice spell, a REALLY nice spell, but because booming blade cant be used with extra attack (that might have changed, IDK) theres nothing except Smites that Synergize with it anymore. Any Pure spellcasting class wanting to be a bit more melee focused now just lost a BIG CHUNK of their synergy and these cantrips on their own become INCREASINGLY Situational without that synergy. Booming blades initial Damage is nice later on but is Vastly Overshadowed by higher end spells and even some other cantrips, UNLESS the creature moves of it's own Will, which, it could if it's a more ranged focused enemy but if it's a melee attacker, all you've done now is put yourself, a squishy pure caster, in it's range for a Measly extra 3d8 tops. additionally, if your a melee class and grab Booming blade now your giving up Extra attack, which, depending on your class can range from Annoying to downright terrible depending on the situation. Fighters get gibbed a fair bit, Barbarians and Monks would be OKAY I suppose but Paladins ESSPECIALLY would get Jibbed as its less chances to Smite. Mind you I'm new-ish to all this, same with my group but DAMN I feel this change was really Unneeded... Yeah your DM can rule it so it works but relying on a DM to be cool isn't the most comfortable thing when you are going into a campaign with a specific build in mind.
Bladesinger’s Extra Attack feature now allows them to cast a cantrip in place of one of their attacks any time they take an attack action. This also means they can now cast a cantrip with their Haste extra attack action.
i wouldn't let booming blade with shadow blade anymore, due to the new cantrip replacement of the bladesinger. you used to have a tradeoff between BB and multiple attacks of your shadow blade, where one or the other would be favored depending on levels, number of extra attacks, etc. having 2 shadow blade attacks + a BB effect on top of it is a little bit too strong imo, since the wizard can easily get very high level shadow blade already. this is exactly the purpose of the new spell spirit shroud, which is more or less a shadow blade effect transposed up by one spell level. There would be no reason for a bladesinger, (except immune to psychic), to ever use spirit shroud if the bladesinger combo can use SB already. on top of that, the combo with spirit shroud is already stronger than 2 normal shadow blade attacks, so still overall a buff. Shadow blade takes a backseat due to this, but remains a thing for the eldritch knight at least, still one of the solid options for EK.
it's just kinda unfortunate that they threw the baby out with the bathwater. This combo got nerfed and bladesingers were buffed -but bladesinger's weren't the only ones using this combo. The incompatibility of these spells nullifies a lot of modest striker roles for warlocks and sorcerers, -and the change in range to self really put the kibosh on any effective sorcerer gish builds without taking 5+ levels of multiclass, -not to mention no longer being able to use this combo for attacks of opportunity with war caster.
@@elliotbryant3459 yeah, EK used the combo at certain levels, especially early, but can still get extra attack with shadow blade, which is still the better option at 3+ attacks, and still alright at low levels so this specific brand of EK will survive. But melee sorcerer to my great dismay got especially shafted with this. No more twin booming blades, which was their only way to attack multiple times with the shadow blade and do good damage, at the cost of resources. So even a nerfed version with spirit shroud instead doesn't work (which would have been fun with a 10 ft whip and spell sniper). booming blade can still be used with warcaster by itself though. overall they gave blade singer an extra combo and left everyone else in the dust for a specific type of builds.
@@bencoltman6646 Trick question! The PHB doesn't define value as a universal concept; it just assumes a certain level of understanding markets by the reader. The point is: Value is relative. Something could be worth an sp to someone and worthless to another. There are market standards sure, and the PHB spells these out, but even the DMG says things don't have universal value and it depends who your asking. Booming Blade specifies the material component needs to be "a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp" but it doesn't to whom it must be worth. The caster? The local market? People assume that since Shadowblade isn't on a chart that it doesn't have a 1sp value; I'm pointing out that the PHB chart doesn't define value as a universal.
@@alex2legit That is a pretty pedantic reading of the rules, using real world logic which has little to no bearing on a game world. I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't have a 1sp cost. And good luck getting a DM to agree to it 'because economic theory'
@@bencoltman6646 Lol that's a pretty lazy argument my dude. Pedants are defined as being excessively concerned with the rules- I'm arguing pedantically as a counter to DEEMPHASIZE the significance of this ruling. If you are the ones saying "well technically Shadow Blade doesn't have a 1 sp cost as listed on the PBH chapter on Equipment and Jeremy Crawford says 'gloom' doesn't have technically have value, therefore my players can't use this combo", then you are the real pedant lol. Just allow it and have fun. I was just meeting the pedantic argument where it was already at.
@@alex2legit There wasn't a ruling, there was an errata, there's a difference. Maybe you think that's pedantry, I think it's just facts and logic. If you're saying that any combo disallowed by RAW is pedantry rather than just the rules, then that's on you, and I'm not really sure how you play a game which is essentially just a list of rules. Sure you can rule that it just works, but you can do that for literally anything so that's not really a valid point.
Things having no value unless explicitly stated by the rules is such a nonsensical, worldbuilding-wrecking rabbit hole that I wouldn't go down it. Still a funny little dilemma resulting from that.
Well it does create a sort of issue in that spell-created goods that will disappear in 1 minute probably don't have the highest value. But only as trade goods, honestly - if you consider spells to be a service that spellcasters can provide, then spells do in fact have a value! ...huh. I wonder if that creates some unforseen loopholes anywhere.
@@normal6483 I mean... A lot of temporary things have real value. If I was homelessa and built a strawhut it would rot away rather quickly but it would still have immense value to me. So if you were to destroy it, I would ask for compensation based on that value. A shadowblade most certainly has value due to the abilities it provides you. If someone were to dispell your shadowblade prematurely, you would be in your full right to ask for compensation.
The weapon isn't consumed by the spell. This is the case for all spell components. Material components are not consumed unless the spell description specifically says they are.
Note that, using a third level slot, shadow blade deals 3d8 + mod psychic damage per hit. Using a third level slot, Spirit Shroud adds 1d8 of cold / necrotic / radiant to your attacks, and gives a little bit of battlefield control. (Edit: And no HP regain for one round - forgot about that part.) With shadow blade, you also have advantage on all attacks made with it in dim light or darkness. And shadow blade creates a new weapon, which has the thrown property. So there are situations where shadow blade, cast with a 2nd level slot, can be better than Spirit Shroud. The main advantage of spirit shroud is that you can stack it with powerful magical weapons of any type (including two-handed weapons, and thus GWM, or with polearms and PAM), but the availability of magic weapons varies greatly from table-to-table, and from campaign-to-campaign.
@@nathansmith9597 I understand now, I maybe biased now cause I'm playing a bladesinger lvl 14... and just adding to your comment, spirit shroud increases at lvls 4, 6, 8. Plus "any creature of your choice that you can see that starts its turn within 10 feet of you has its speed reduced by 10 feet until the start of your next turn." U can combo with slasher feat
Any dm that dosen’t allow you to split your attack action between hands is kinda a tool. Two handed user use both hands for every attack and d&d is a roleplaying game not a video game. No one wants to play with someone who makes you walk around like a clunky AI, like it literally dosen’t even Matter long term since you’d do collectively less damage than just using shadow blade
The question "does the Shadow Blade have value" shows just how silly some conceptions of value are. The idea a lot of people work with is that things have intrinsic value independent of their uses, and therefore demand. That's nonsense. The question that makes more sense to me is "Does the Shadow Blade have value to someone?" or "Can someone reasonably say 'I would spend a silver piece on this weapon'?" to which the obvious answer is "yes, in the right context." Now, a shop might assign a great value to it before they know it disappears and zero value to it once they know it disappears since they can't resell it (another example of how silly the idea of intrinsic value is for material items). Most importantly, whoever is using the shadow blade would surely, reasonably assign a value to it while using it (I assume you can hand the blade off to someone and not violate the "if it's dropped/thrown, it returns" clause). A better way to answer the value of the blade itself is to ask if the caster would be willing to pay the 1 silver piece to create the blade. The answer is clearly yes whether the caster uses it or someone else does. Would the recipient of the blade be willing to pay another silver piece to continue using it? Of course! The shadow blade is worth at least 1 silver piece.
I actually think the rules on TWF are clear. "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you gain a bonus action you can use to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.' This means that if you use the attack action and attack with a weapon it gives you this bonus action. If you attack with two weapons in different hands, they would both grant you this bonus action. You may only take one of them, since you are limited on the number of bonus actions you may take per turn.
So in his example Booming blade with short sword / Shadow Blade / Shadow Blade won't work because in the second attack he's using Shadow Blade, then the following bonus action attack uses the same hand (Shadow Blade). Could he go Shadow Blade / Booming short sword / Shadow Blade?
@@Charles-ij1ow No it works, When you attack with the Short Sword you gain a bonus action that you can use to attack with the Shadow Blade. Nothing says you need to use that bonus action immediately.
@Remy B “you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.” Specific vs general I think it’s meant to be taking the attack action with 1 weapon specifically grants you a bonus action for another weapon.
The bladesinger is just fun to play and these videos are just awesome to watch.
Too often Crawford is like a newspaper Horoscope. He says something vague and let's people interpret it how they feel when people are looking for an official ruling and its super frustrating. Given that Tasha's is basically a book of "Here are a bunch of house rules that you should be using already but don't because they aren't 'RAW' so you are scared to try", not being clear on this is silly. Given that if a character is going to use Shadowblade they likely will want to use GFB or BB, when they changed those cantrips they should have foreseen this.
They absolutely should have. Also if they didn't want people to use a focus with booming blade all they needed to do was delete 'M' from the components line.
I remember the good ol tiems when there was a difference betwen a "amterial component" and a "focus"
GFB and BB clearly need a "weapon focus", a metrial component that is never consumend and can never be replaced by a "spellcasting focus" and that sitn present ina component pich. the SP cost is ceraly a badly thought out way to make it "more ligical" within the cosntraints of Spellcasting foci and component puches. abetter solution would have been to get rid of the material component adn add a "as part of casting the spell you make a melee weapon attack with a melee weapon you are wielding."
@@Byssbod They did what they did to stop the 2handed weapons and wasn't you able to use GFB and BB with bows beforehand?
“Jerry Crawford would allow it” holds a lot less water after watching what he allows Patrick Rothfuss get away with during AI sessions.
Are you talking about *former* author Patrick Rothfuss?
@@Brad933 lmao.
I think another thing to mention is that even if this build worked smoothly in the rules, it's still very bonus action heavy. Bladesong, shadow blade AND two weapon fighting are all bonus actions, so you won't even be able to make the bonus action attack until round 3, which in some cases the combat is already over.
I've been having so much fun with my Bladesinger since the class was released in SCAG. Playing her as a Red Mage from Final Fantasy. Thanks for the video
After our initial convo on Twitter and reading the TWF rules again, I was also thinking something along the lines of the trigger being just one of the attacks made as part of the Attack action , but I didn't go down the route of trying to give a monetary valuation to Shadowblade's effect of creating an actual weapon with which you can attack.
Great video, I will most likely use this in my Tasha's Updates videos because you explained everything better than I ever would, seeing how English is still my 2nd language.
Thanks! It turns out your initial response was probably correct after all that.
While I confess that I can't claim this is the only interpretation, my interpretation has always been that phrases like "counts as" mean to treat it as if it were so in mechanical terms.
For example, sneak attacks and disadvantage: "You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll." "If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them" - I consider this to mean that a rogue can sneak attack while they have disadvantage if the rogue *also* has advantage and has an ally within 5 feet of the target. Since the rogue is not "considered" to have advantage or disadvantage when having both, then sneak attack should still be possible.
Hence, I think the phrase "It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient" should mean that the Shadow Blade counts as a simple weapon. Note that it doesn't count as just a weapon, but specifically a "simple" weapon. "Simple" refers to the weapons table, on which we can see that all simple weapons have a value to them. If those weapons have value, then the Shadow Blade should be considered to have value whether it does in actuality or not.
I sort of feel like this video was pointless for exactly what you point out. It counts as the thing required for the spell/TWF. It sort of felt like this video keeps trying to pick at things that don't have any problems.
@@shawnmayo8210 while I wish that were the case, some 5e players and DMs are litigious as fuck. For example, if you use a weapon to make a ranged weapon attack, does that weapon count as a ranged weapon for the purpose of making said ranged weapon attack? No, not according to Crawford or a majority of the online 5e community. Reactions, spell targets, the definition of what "when" means, etc. are all argued to death. What does it mean that your position is "revealed" when you make an attack while insivible, and are you still revealed if you move without first hiding? No one knows, ask your DM.
It's actually really, really hard to say anything definitive about 5e's rules in some cases.
@@stranger6822 this definitely a case of people choosing to ignore words to say it's not clear when it's very clear. Thrown weapon properties answer your question.
@@shawnmayo8210 then take stealth and illusions as examples when the rules are deliberately vague to encourage DM interpretation. There's quite a lot of that in 5e. And I don't hold it against anyone if they can't remember or haven't read every single word.
it was just stupid to require a cost for the weapon, if they just said that the material component was a weapon with which you were proficient(or some such) it wouldn't matter. like why does it have to cost money? also, it would be hilarious to be a bladesinger with tavern brawler using green flame blade with a broken bottle.
Wait does that mean that booming blade and green flame blade no longer work with a warlock's pact weapon? 😱
Well once you get a magical weapon, you can turn it into your pact weapon
Per Jeremy Crawford that actually conjures a weapon, so it works.
Per Jeremy Crawford Shadow blade works, that is not an answer.
No worries! Totally works with pact weapon!
That's likely correct.
Interesting. They really could have solved this issue by making the shadow blade have a physical weapon as a material component and then both booming blade and Shadow Blade both can use your one weapon and solve the entire problem.
Or they can just as easily reword shadow blade and give it a cost
yea your change takes away from the spirit of the spell. You manifest the weapon from illusion magic. what your talking about is basically a transmutation spell
@@zhangbill1194 that's not great either lol it takes away from the spirit of the spell. I think this was intended to not work with BB anymore
@@zhangbill1194 possibly. That works though doing it the way I suggest provides a basis for more weapon focused spells and not just cantrips we mostly have. I think there is a conceptual space for that not just with blade singer and the quarter casters.
@@leodouskyron5671 But one of the cool parts of Shadow Blade is it's the perfect infiltration weapon, or you can use it when you are stripped off all your gear. Honestly, just errata the Cantrips (because those just changed) or Shadowblade's description too say they work with them, then it's problem solved.
"Bestow Curse scroll, for example, has value. But obviously the curse itself isn't going to be worth anything."
::Vial of poison intensifies.::
I agree using curses on enemies is very desireable so curses have alot of value. Not sure how it's in 5e but in previous editions you could craft cursed items on purpose and there was a table with special cursed items and their value there were cursed items with value over 100.000gp with devastating effects. Just take the Scarab of Death which kills you instantly if you hold it for more than 1 round or keep it on your body for longer than 1 minute. A nice DC25 reflex save or instant death as it burrows into your body straight into your heart.
Placing the scarab in a container of wood, ceramic, bone, ivory, or metal prevents the monster from coming to life and allows for long-term storage of the item. So you can carry it around with you then mage hand it to an easy to spot place and watch enemies kill themselfs when they pick it up. 80.000 GP for an infinitely reuseable instant death effect? Yes please!
Thank you for the time you put into this research, as a DM, I agree with your conclusion: just allow it and spare yourself headaches. Plus, if you think about it, 5e character dmg output can already be OP without this trick, so in most cases we are just discussing about the size of an overkill margin. :D
All you gotta do is sell your Shadow Blade to a party member for one silver piece before it disappears. Youve now established that it has a value of one silver piece.
Seems silly. But what happens if you try to sell the dagger you have been using to do these cantrips, and a shop npc refuses and calls it worthless? Does the spell not work next time you use it?
I think, even if the "different from each weapon used in the Attack Action" interpretation is technically legitimate, it's kind of contradicting the fiction a little bit. I don't know of anyone playing a two-weapon fighter who's visualizing doing several attacks with their primary weapon and then following up with a single off-hand bonus attack. It works pre-Extra Attack, but once you have that and TWF style, especially the fighter's Extra Extra Attack, it gets weird. I feel like most people are visualizing "right left right" or "right left right left" and I don't want to tell them that they're wrong for arbitrary mechanical reasons.
I completely agree, I've always imagined it the same 💪
I visualize it more as using your off-hand blade as a parrying weapon, making multiple stabs and slashes with your primary weapon, then sliding in that extra weapon under their guard. So, right, right, left with extra attack.
Thanks! I'd seen these rulings separately but how they interacted was not something I had considered since I don't normally dual wield with my bladesinger.
Loved the collab with Nerdarchy, any more planned with other channels?
Nothing currently
One thing these videos really show is that thanks to the ease of contacting the rules teams for the games that we play, any RAW vs RAI debates can quickly be answered. While it's not 100% clear i nthis case, the fact that we can so easily reach out to the rules teams of the Tabletop Games we play is fantastic for DMs and Players.
That would be the case if the developers were actually clear in their answers. Unfortunately oftentimes you can’t tell if an answer is RAW, RAI, how they would rule as DM, or just what they think should happen.
This is why the game has to have a DM. The designers can't possibly anticipate every possible rules interaction, and if they did the rules would be too unwieldly to use.
I feel that this interaction should have been expected though. -designer sees that gishes are very popular. -designer creates a melee cantrip that dramatically increases casters melee damage to support them. -designer creates a spell that also dramatically increases caster's martial effectiveness. -designer does not see these gish keystones interacting?
@@elliotbryant3459 It's not just that though. It's those spells existing + a wording change affecting how they interact + the new bladesinger wizard ability + two weapon fighting.
@@zackglenn2847 the first point is an obvious interaction though. (much like twinning and the war caster opportunity attack now being out by RAW due to the range of self) -But ya, the other 2 abilities do compound things.
TWF is just so poorly worded, it’s like they wrote it before deciding extra attack was going to be a thing. And the bladesinger ability is kind of unprecedented in its bypassing of the action economy.
Sorry, this one wasn’t a massive leap in imagination. It was clear these spells weee going to interact and they literally just changed the cantrips and the subclass that will use Shadow Blade.
Just add another line saying the material component for the cantrips is a weapon worth 1sp OR a conjured weapon solves the issue.
@@andrewshandle There are over 500 spells in DnD, with 13 classes each with multiple subclasses. If they spent the time going through all of that with the fine-toothed comb it would take to catch every time 5 different rules interact in a weird way, they would never finish it.
Also, if they said "or a conjured weapon", then a focus would still fulfill the requirement and the original problem would persist.
"clearly the designer could not have anticipated that six years later we would have a situation..."
But they could have future proofed it better.
Or at all.
By making the "attack with a different weapon as a part of your action" a clear distinction in Two-Weapon fighting.
"If you are wielding two different weapons in your hands, when you take the attack action, you can attack with either weapon, but the total number of attack you can make does not change. You add your ability modifier to the damage rolls of either weapon.
However, if both separate weapons have teh "light" property, you can make an additional weapon attack with your bonus action, using either weapon. This is referred to as "Two-Weapon Fighting", and you do not add your ability modifier to the damage roll you make if you hit this bonus action."
Yes, this is also cheeseable, because you pick up an amazing versatile weapon, like a flametongue, add a dagger into your other hand and you suddenly make another 1d8+2d6 damage as your bonus action.
But it ca nbe regulated through weapon drops and bonus action usage.
If I can come up with a simple solution like this in 2 minutes, why would it be unreasonable to expect something better than this from paid designers over 2 years, instead of something worse?
Or at the very least, why can’t the developers just retroactively fix the rules via errata, instead of spending their time “fixing” GFB/BB which nobody asked for.
@@M0ebius I have no idea about how they decide what to fix, they manage to find QOL things (PAM working with staves but not spears was fixed in an errata), but at the same the other half is such a miss.
It's a bit unfair to expect the designers from 2012 onward (or whenever most of 5e was initially written) to future proof designs for weird changes (like BB and GFB to suddenly require a weapon with monetary value) that would come 7+ years later. Two-Weapon Fighting is worded wierdly, but it's actually very clear that you can't simply attack with the same weapon again, thus the name and the requirement to actually have a weapon in each hand. I've never actually encounted anyone think or argue otherwise (and I play with a lot of newbies in an online Adventurers League).
@@Nr4747 Okay, first off, rephrasing then. What I meant by "attack with a diferent weapon", was not the bonus action attack. But the extra attack.
If I have 2 weapons and have the extra attack, this is the first time I heard that I can determine which weapon to attack with, without TWF. The rules are this jumlbed.
If I am a level 5 fighter with an axe and a sword with no feat, I always thought I can only do sword-sword or axe-axe. I had no reason to even think about doing a sword-axe attack.
Clarifyign this part in the TWF section would have been great.
So no, I dont think it is unreasonable to expect future proofing from designers who get paid to write rules like this.
1) clarify if you are wielding multiple weapons, and just your action allows you to take multiple attacks, you can use whichever weapon for whichever attack of that action
2) if that allows you to use your BA for TWF, make up a rule that will work with all combinations implyied in 1).
@@texteel Ah, okay, my bad, I completely misunderstood what you meant (if that's your fault or mine doesn't matter, imho). Yeah, they never clarified that part. For me, it was always clear that you could choose either weapon in such a case - why wouldn't/shouldn't you be able to ? The bonus action attack is just in addition to that. So yes, you absolutely should be allowed to choose to go axt-sword or sword-axe or axe-axe etc.
Seems to me like adding the 1 silver requirement did more harm then good.
Im still salty that BB isn’t twinnable.
I miss bonking people with my spellbook.
Lets go over the stated requirements one by one. I do think all the requirements are objectively satisfied:
1- You took an attack action
2- You attacked with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand (a short sword)
3- You attack with a different light melee weapon in the other hand (shadow blade) using a bonus action
If it said "When you make all your attacks during an attack action using the same weapon[...]" then it would be a different story.
But is says "if you attack with", which evidently means something different from "if you make every attack with". I actually don't think there is room for interpretation on that point.
It's a binary statement. You either made an attack with it or you didn't. Since you did make an attack with that weapon, it is irrelevant wether you also attacked with another weapon.
(Note that 2 technically doesn't even specify that the attack must be part of the previously mentioned attack action. Not that this changes anything, it works either way, but it is interesting to me.)
Or just use spirit shroud...u can use in all 3 atacks (action, ba)
This is one of those moments when you gotta say "Screw what that piece of paper says"
Hmm... I don't think I agree with your idea that the shadowblade itself lacks a value. Ask yourself "Would the common adventurer pay more than 1 silver to have this blade for a minute?" If the answer is yes, then the blade is worth 1 silver. Value doesn't have to come from directly trading the item with another person.
For example. We can't really sell our hands, but noone would argue that our hands have no value. That is because they provide us with certain abilities. So if someone were to "steal" our hands, we would demand compensation based on the value placed upon hands by society.
You say that "You not being frightened" doesn't have value, but it does. The value you place on not being frightened is exactly what informs the value of the spellslots used to cast calm emotions.
Why do spell slots have value? Because of the potential benefits they grant you, not because they can be directly traded as an item. THe exact same logic applies to the shadowblade, it grants you potential and abilities, so it has value.
Yeah, but how about the Thunder Gauntlets for the Armourer Artificer? does it work becouse the gauntlet is part of the armour and the armour have value?
or the Warlock pact weapon?
or the Psychic Blades of the Soulknife Rogue?
Very similar questions. As a DM I would probably say "yes" to all, at least for the purpose of casting gfb/bb
Yes on all except for Psychic blades. I assume "a weapon costing at least 1sp" means a "real" weapon made out of matter and not some magic tought construct.
@@godofzombi so you wouldn't allow it to work with shadowblade?
@@np9145 Sorry, but no. Not unless you can explain to me how "threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom" costs 1 silver peace.
I'd say it's RAW already.
- When you take the Attack Action: That condition is obviously fulfilled
- and Attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand: This condition is also fulfilled. You did attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to do that for all attacks or even in the attack action. For it not to work it would have needed to be worded like: in which you use a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand for each attack.
I know that you can intepret this sentence differently, but that is if you put intent into that sentence and read between the lines. The "and" splits the sentence into two conditions, which act seperately.
This would be my take on this.
DnD really is for everyone! :)
Both cleric subclasses!!! :D That's a very good news indeed ^^
I think it comes down to whether you'd allow a player wielding two light weapons to attack with each one once as part of an Attack action with Extra Attack getting their ability mod added to damage for each and then choose to use either as their bonus action attack without the ability mod. If yes, then this should work. If you see it as a main hand/off hand scenario, where the attack and extra attack have to be with the same weapon and the bonus action attack with a different one, then no, this wouldn't work.
I personally see it like this: If casting a cantrip that includes an attack as part of the spell doesn't count as an attack to invoke the bonus action off hand attack, I would say the trigger is the actual attack made with the Attack action, not the cantrip cast in place of one of the attacks you take with the Attack action. Considering that the attack is part of a spell casting, and only available if you are already using the Attack action to make a standard attack, there is no reason to give it priority as the trigger for two weapon fighting.
If your DM doesn't let you use Booming Blade w/ Shadow Blade I don't see how it's possible to use Booming Blade on your shortsword with a Shadow Blade in the other hand. Wont you not be able to fulfill the somatic component of Booming Blade w/ your hands full? You could drop the shadow blade I suppose, but then you'd be forced to use your BA next round to make it reappear.
If a spell has a material component and a somatic component then the same hand can be used for both. Meaning the hand holding the weapon worth 1 sp also performs the somatic component.
Yo, just using a regular non-magical rapier with spirit shroud you can get the same damage numbers as shadow blade plus it works with green flame blade for the bladesinger level 6 ability by RAW and impedes a little bit of nearby enemy movement speed. Can choose from 3 damage types for it as well when you cast which is good adaptability. Only thing you lose is the advantage in dim light or darkness.
I kind of just don't like the implications of not allowing this as it pertains to two weapon fighting + extra attack in general. If you were to not allow the bonus action attack because you used two different weapons during extra attack, then TWF fighters would be in a weird spot. A 20th level fighter would have to make all 4 Extra Attacks with the same weapon in order to use their bonus action attack? That's silly.
Timestamp; Jeremy Crawford would allow it at his table.
Me; Welp, I know which direction my bias is about to lean. lol.
Would you say this TWF strategy is worth it over using Flaming Sphere, considering Flaming Sphere can be annoying to manage but also incentives the proc of booming blade?
I think I'd change the Shadowblade spell. If you don't have a weapon it summons one for you like the spell originally says. Instead of having the spell create a weapon made of shadow it summons an actual, physical weapon that's infused with shadow magic, The Shadowblade, that has the properties laid out in the spell. That way you could use the material value for that weapon type (shortsword, etc.) from the PHB for Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. IMO the spell was created initially to work for full spellcasters who aren't likely to have a sword handy if things go wrong and they need to go melee. The thing is with Bladesinger and other gish builds that doesn't work. They don't need to create a sword if they already have one. For them I'd add a further amendment to the spell that says that if you do have a weapon you can cast the spell onto that weapon sort of like an arcane version of the Holy Weapon spell. I think that would solve the issues the changes to the Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade cantrips created while still letting you use Shadowblade on an existing weapon. That way you wouldn't have to deal with the whole two weapon fighting thing (unless you want to use TWF).
WotC has a legalese team who vet and advise all printed rules, but these debatable interpretations always slip through... it's an impossible task.
Is it super suboptimal to predominately go Bladesinger but do a 3 level dip into Artificer to get Battle Smith so that your weapon bonuses are based on Int?
Extra attack at level 9, spells delayed 3 levels. . .I think the cost is too high
Yes, and you will still need Dex for AC
I'd buy that for a silver piece!
I just assumed that the devs did this on purpose because they didn't want people being too dependent on shadow blade being combined with booming blade/green-flame blade so it was intended. Personally, I don't even mind it because there are a lot of other interesting options.
Yep. In AL the combo never exists because characters are limited to PHB and 1 other book and Shadowblade and GFB & BB are from 2 different books. Prohibiting the combo seems the clear intent of the rule change.
The new version of the cantrips have heaps of problems. For example, how is the value of a weapon determined? If someone sells a version of that weapon below the atated price, does it disqualify the weapon permenantly? Is it based on an average of pricing? If so how does the spell keep updated? Could a kingdom realize that if it outlaws the sale of weapons and instead it must be through exchange does it destroy this spell? Does the spell continue as long as any kingdom uses currency for the item, and if so how big does the kingdom have to be before its just one person determining the value? What about fiat currency for mineral poor kingdoms or shells from barter cultures, thise aren't coins so rules as written cant be used. Frankly it doesnt make any sense and all the changes to the spell are pretty much to eliminate obscure edge cases probably just so they can claim they didnt just reprint the spell but "updated" it for pr reasons. Bit of a pessimists take I admit but the problems and restrictions the new versions put in while contributing nothing just feels bad.
The same argument can be made for "A diamond worth 5,000 gp".
Can we stop the resurrection of the evil dark lord by crashing the markets?
Does stealing anything in your world permanently change the value to 0 cp, as you technically acquired the item for 0 cp? No, it doesn't change it. Does sharpening your longsword make it do d12 damage? No, it doesn't. Does your wizard with a though build and who used to eat small doses of poisonous mushrooms get to use a d8 hit die or have poison resistance? No, they don't.
Item value is just another game mechanic, it's determined by the rule book and you should just accept it as such, the game doesn't give you specific amounts of spell materials it just says "whatever worth x gp" and the quantity is gonna vary from world to world. And that's fine, because having a general value for items it's a good shorthand for the game, and makes balancing costs easier(Not that the dnd team is particularly good at it, mind you).
I hate the concept of having RAW or RAI, as one of the other games WotC makes(MTG) has a fully grokable rule system, that works with no interpretation required, while having 20k+ different game pieces. But when something is as clear as Item value, It's not the designer's fault that you want to be stubborn and not just use the text written in the book.
@@PAPP0NE it's more an issue that it's a very basic economical idea that if you're the only one selling something, people will have to pay what you're charging. Hence this always comes up if someone is trying to figure out how to optimize a character that uses something that requires a monetary thing of value, that whole idea of how can I get this thing for less than it's is? I am unsure why they do not just give spells normal measurements like is used in cooking or chemistry... this just seems so much more needlessly complicated and brings up a whole plethora of unneeded and easily avoidable questions.
@@winterfreyja5494 Have fun discussing with your dm the definitions of the unit for length/weight/times in their world. Highly doubtful that the anybody in your low-tech medieval fantasy world with magic, knows the precise speed of light or the plank constant or what cesium-133 even is, and if they can't measure it like that, in a completely abstract way, how do we know that 1hr duration or 1 pound of salt is what it says in the book? Adding pointless IRL mechanics to your game is gonna bog it down and make it less fun. And yes the whole point is that you want to bargain and get something for less than is worth(As in the arbitrary monetary value assigned by the book, as a shorthand to make balancing costs easier) or that if you have complete control of the supply you can raise the price to more that what the item is worth(As in the arbitrary monetary value assigned by the book, as a shorthand to make balancing costs easier) or that if nobody wants to buy that item an NPC would me more willing to sell something for less than it is worth(As in the arbitrary monetary value assigned by the book, as a shorthand to make balancing costs easier)
The point of the change to not allow you to sub out the material component. JC explicitly said the change did not keep you from combining SH and BB and was never intended to do that. His tweet clarified if another spell cares about the value to can assign one from the PHB. RAI it works and I would think RAW it works. I think the rules lawyers (myself included) got way to bound up and talked each other into this combo not working.
I dont see any issue with " It counts as a simple melee weapon " and every simple melee weapon has a value of at least one silver piece ; basically what Jeremy said.
Well I think that I'll just consider Shadow Blade a 1 silver piece weapon same with Pact Blade or Flame Blade Lmao
Flame Blade is not a weapon at all though. You can't even make an attack action with it
I would argue that the gold value of a spell component doesn't necessarily represent how much you spent, or would spend, on the item, but the intrinsic quality of the item. For example: Say you rolled low on an insight check and bought a pearl the size of a crumb for 100g. You could technically say that you bought a pearl worth 100g, but it wouldn't be a viable component for the Identify spell. So, in my opinion, I think the question we should be asking is: "What level of quality, as a weapon, is the Shadow Blade?"
Player’s response: it cost me 50gp in inks and materials to scribe the shadow blade spell, so that’s 49 gold+ more cost than I need. It’s silly for WOTC to use something as useless as the perception of “value” as a material component. If I use a rusty blade that I pick up off the dungeon floor for free, does BB fizzle because the weapon used was free? Or, does BB fizzle because the closest merchant would not give me more than 6 copper for it currently because the sword market is currently down?
you can attack three times.
using action and extra attack and bonus action.
the two weapon fighting uses a bonus action and is triggered by using the attack action only.. not the extra attack(this is considered as an extra attack only and not another action in your turn). . the extra attack does not trigger a bonus action. even if it does(but it doesnt) but lets say some rule specifies that you can trigger it using extra attack....you can only do 1 bonus action per turn anyway.
you can do "extra attack" or "attack using your action" in any order you like.. but the "bonus action attack" is only triggered if you used the action on your turn as an attack using a melee weapon.
so summary you can attack three times, action, extra attack and bonus action.
Super late to the party, but I found this video because I'm building a bladesinger to do this exact thing and, regarding Two Weapon Fighting, I think it's important to step back from all the litigation and consider that maybe Two Weapon Fighting was ONLY worded in the noodly way it was because the point is simply to prevent characters from doing something like holding a shadow blade in one hand, a dagger in the other and being able to attack three times with shadow blade, just because they were holding another pokey thing. How much does it really matter if someone performs a booming blade/shadow blade combo on their action, then shadow blades on their bonus action, versus two shadow blade attacks and a scimitar swipe? With the significant investments of Two Weapon Fighting Style, +5 Dex or Str, and a third level slot and a bonus action spent on shadow blade, the difference in damage on the second round, assuming the enemy triggers the extra booming blade damage and *all* attacks land, is 45.5 average damage vs 57 average damage. If you don't have the creativity or foresight to deal with something like that as a DM, you should probably not be a DM just yet. And if you just plain think that's too much damage, then ffs just give your enemies a little more hit points or something so your player can feel awesome without breaking the game, it's not rocket science. Let players be awesome when they invest in the ability to be awesome. There's a lot one gives up just to be able to do this specific thing, especially as a wizard.
Could a Scribe wizard change the damage time of shadow blade for the entire duration of the spell?
Upcast shadow blade to 7th level and have pick prismatic spray your shadow blade could be a lightning blade, flame, acid, poison, cold. 😅
I think it all depends on how you rule the use of the booming blade/ green flame blade cantrips... To my limited knowledge, cantrips count as casting a spell and not using the attack action? So even though the two specific cantrips make weapon attacks, they are spells. Hence why Tasha's reworded the multiattack feature for the bladesinger to include allowing the use of a cantrip for one attack specifically. Otherwise any arcane dipped fighter would be able to use booming blade and still get their extra attack. So if you shadowblade attack, then cantrip attack with the normal weapon, does that attack count as a spell being cast or a regular attack? My thinking says spell, and that's how I would rule it, but your DM may see it different.
I don't see how whether you rule it as an attack or a spell makes a difference? Although in my books it's both
Now on a similar topic regarding the Bladesinger I would love your opinion on Haste and the Extra Attack feature with Booming Blade. As I read it you get 2 booming blade attacks and one normal attack on the same turn and that's quite useful as it ups the offensive value of haste while boosting mobility and defense.
How do you get 2 booming blade attacks? You get one from your regular action and neither hasted action or bonus action allows you to make another
@@bencoltman6646 Haste does in fact give give you another literal attack action even though the spell limits the amount of attacks you can do with it. The Extra Attack feature on Bladesinger let's you swap out one of the those attacks for a cantrip. So in the General nothing prohibits it except that you rarely if ever get extra actions that can be used for spells. But this feature from the bladesinger is worded so that it does in fact allow you to swap one of any attacks in the attack action for a cantrip. So if you have 2 attack actions you can cast 2 booming blade. This makes Haste IMO really good and useful as it improves both offense, defense ans maneuverability 😁
@@Viryn Interesting, you are in theory correct. I think it would be up to the DM though which of those was the specific and which was the general rule, so I don't think that's an interaction you could rely on working at most tables.
What do you think of shadow blade for the true arcane trickster build you made (illusion mage) ? I consider it in replacement of darkvision because I have it from my race.
SB is good on a Rogue Arcane Trickster. My illusionist build is not a melee combatant
@@TreantmonksTemple Ha really? I thought it would be okay since it has booming blade (my dm would allow the combo). Okay noted, thanks =)
Don’t you love that we have to have the conversations now because something that was working fine was changed? Even if a player tried to cast one of the blade cantrips with a component pouch I’d just rule that they make an unarmed strike and apply the effect to it, it’s not a world shaking problem the rules had to be rewritten to solve.
Just because you can make a ruling to fix something does not mean it's not broken. Lots of people thought the beastmaster ranger was trash, and lots of those people probably homebrewed a new one, that doesn't mean that it wasn't worthwhile to have a new one come out that was RAW. As for the magnitude of the problem, there's other people in the comments saying that they should've thought about this in the first place, so clearly people care about minutia.
"me not being frightened has no market value"
Sir, they are called antianxiety meds and they ain't cheap
Great stuff
Have someone in the party offer to buy your shadowblade for a silver piece. Now it has value. Problem solved. You win D&D.
look im just saying if i summon a shadow blade and walk into a store and ask a shop keep how much he would pay for it and he says x amount and doesn't know its a "fake" sword im counting that as having value.
Don't you still need a free hand to perform the somatic components of booming blade?
If i am not wrong you can do the somatic part with the same hand from the material, soo i guess no problem
@@Faircrow correct, you can do the somatic component with the hand holding the material. You need a free hand for somatic if the spell does not have a material component.
I hope that more care is taken with 6e whenever that comes out. This shouldn't even need to be a conversation. However, problems like this and the whole "holding a magical shield is all you need to grant the AC bonus" ruling do not fill me with hope :/.
Wouldn’t using Shadowblade in your offhand resolve this problem? It may not be the most ideal but if you are using a short sword/dagger in your main hand you would get:
Attack Action:
Cantrip: Booming blade with Short sword
2nd attack: short sword with PB
Bonus Action:
Offhand attack with Shadow blade
It may not be 100% optimized but this removes and argument about rules and you still are giving those fighters a melee run for their money at 6th :)
A literal shadow dancer
i think i have the fix for this problem make a miniature weapon of 1 sp has the spell component then voila 2 cantrips solve cause u can put the miniature in the second weapon i dont know if that makes sense cause english is not my strong language
So two weapon fighting doesn’t suck for non rogues anymore? Cool!
Rules of Crawford was that he would allow Shadow blade to work with bb and gfb. For what that's worth. I don't understand why you would two weapon fight as a bladesinger to begin with but you do you.
Also, it's debatable how useful shadow blade is for a bladesinger. Arcane trickster, yes. Bladesinger... iunno. 2d8(?)+dex+int for however long it lasts is nice, but is it worth a spell slot?
I still don’t understand how the attack with Booming Blade is considered an attack action since it is casting a spell. Please help me understand where I’m messing up. Thx.
It’s the blade singer feature. They make an **Attack Action** and as part of that **Attack Action** they can cast a spell. In this case, the spell we choose is booming blade, which allows us to make a melee weapon attack.
I took it for granted that booming blade and green flame blade required a weapon with a material cost in TCE. However, my copy only says a weapon. Is there more than one version of TCE?
Solidified gloom could be as expensive as dark matter.
Sometimes diving into the rules in this way is just silly. It's giving power to the designers as if they really, truly intend for this to be a balanced game, which they do not.
I've got a brain buster for you. Can Find steed become a Sidekick?
So...my Shillelagh character now needs to pick up a fancy stick?
Should probably be using a Druidic Focus (worth 10gp) to attack with for Shillelagh anyway. That way you can hold a shield and still cast Shillelagh.
@@4quickben4no issue, i have War Caster anyways
Any DM who doesn't allow it is a bit silly
If Jeremy Crawford would allow something as a DM, why did he change the rules in the first place?
Because hes thebwriter of the sage advice column, he's never been the actual lead designer . He's just interpreting someone elses work.
4:40 - Even if Jeremy doesn't say that RAW allow it, they actually do. Shadowblade creates a "sword of solidified gloom", so the blade is physical and very real. Now, if it counts as a simple melee weapon, then it has a value superior to 1 SP. It wouldn't make sense for a magically created sword to be worth less than a Club. TBH, that's the problem with "value" in material components. If you want to be very realistic in your game, weapons might have different values in different cities, just as IRL things have different values depending on where you go. There's no reason why a DM wouldn't recognize at least a value higher than 1 SP to a Shadowblade
You can't sell a Shadowblade though, so it really has zero value. They idea that they use the sell value of items is very silly in general, but it is what it is. ;)
@@andrewshandle Actually, you can. If you trick someone who has no arcane knowledge, you could in theory sell it. Of course the blade would disappear a short time after, but you could sell it, so it has a value
@@k-p116 You have under one minute to negotiate a deal and within six seconds of handing it over it disappears, so not really. So "hey, can I see it?" followed by "Let me take a look at it" would see it disappear.
@@andrewshandle With high deception you could negotiate money first and blade later. Then make a run for it. So yeah, selling it is possible. And if it counts as a simple melee weapon, then it has a value
@@k-p116 You seem to be confused was "value" is. If a wizard goes outside and finds a tiny pebble on the road and casts an illusion on it that makes it look like a gem. If they then go sell that gem for 100gp, it doesn't have a value of 100gp, it's still worth nothing. Tricking someone into buying an item doesn't change the value of that item.
Oh, and I imagine most D&D worlds with magic would have laws against selling an illusionary item and running out of the store within 6 seconds of handing it over which would still make the item useless (and worth nothing) and the player a criminal.
So no, you can't sell a Shadow Blade as an item.
This video is the Aberrant Mind infusing your character, making them a Sorcerer.
3:40 "then clearly not all weapons have value" i dont get why youre interpreting it like this, by RAW that would mean that explicitly the shadow blade does have value.
Yes. Analysis. Yum!
I may be wrong but it would be:
Attack Action - Shadow Blade
Spellcasting Action - cantrip
So you won't actually even be using an attack action per say with the non-shadowblade weapon.
Extra Attack
TCE p76
Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can *cast* one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
As the Shadowblade is a light weapon you could do:
Attack Action- Shadowblade
Spellcasting Action- cantrip
Bonus Action- Two-weapon fighting with the weapon you used for the cantrip
But that cantrip is part of the attack action, it isn't a separate action on your turn.
You are: 1 taking the attack action, 2 casting a cantrip, and 3 making an attack with a light weapon. It satisfies all of the requirements for 2 weapon fighting. If you did this outside of the attack action for bladesingers it wouldn't work, but this is a specific exception to a general rule.
So you are saying that the cantrip is not part of the attack action?
Since you’re taking the attack action first and then replacing one attack with a cantrip, the cantrip is DEFINITELY part of the attack action.
@@vitalem4 Actually the specific rule here is the allowance to cast instead of extra attack, with normally is not allowed. The fact that you are now allowed to cast does not change the action type. *Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.* Still using the Cast. But it still just my interpretation of how it is written, and until a clarification or Sage is released it won't be more than that.
That last bit is what I had missed as well until you pointed it out. I thought "you have to take the attack action to get the bonus action attack, but you have to take the spellcasting action to cast a cantrip, so why is this even a discussion?" But you're right - once they get extra attack, bladesingers can cast one cantrip as part of their attack action instead of making one of their attacks.
They have taken the Attack action, and their training has allowed them to take a specific Spellcasting action as a sub-element of the Attack action they are taking. But the overall action is still Attack, so they can do the bonus action attack.
Oh shoot..forgot about the cantrip changes, guess that breaks my soulknife rogue with booming blade. Boo...my DM should be cool though.
Is that such a good combo that you actually care for that much?
Anyone have a citation on the ability of a character to make the Extra attack with the offhand weapon. My understanding is that the Attack action attack and Extra attacks all have to come from the main hand and the bonus action attack is from the offhand.
There is no distinction between mainhand and offhand in 5e.
Nowhere in the rules (at least in 5e) does it differentiate between a "main weapon" an an "off hand weapon".
Obviously I'm just using mainhand v offhand as shorthand, so to speak. Attack action comes from one weapon in one hand and bonus action attack from a different weapon in the other hand. But where does it say that the extra attack can come from either hand/weapon?
@@fortunatus1 Usually I'm not fond of the "it doesn't say that you can't" explanation for rules interpretation, but that's the case here. None of the rules for the Attack action, for making an attack in general or Extra Attack say that you can't use different weapons for multiple attacks.
@@Laukaus11 The more I think about it, the more I conclude that this is expressly prohibited. Two Weapon Fighting rule begins with "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand". The Extra Attack is part of the Attack action and it explicitly states "that you're holding in one hand". Moreover, if you're making the Attack and Extra Attack with the weapons in both your hands then the "different weapon" requirement for the bonus action attack from two weapon fighting is not satisfied.
Shadowblade has over 1 silver piece value if someone is ready to pay for it over 1 silver piece.
Value is a result of trade. Can you give your Shadowblade to someone else in trade? If not, then it has no value.
@@fortunatus1 You can. RAW It disappears if you drop it or throw it, not if you give it to someone else. Since you can use it as throwing weapon, it makes sense that you could concentrate and keep it in existence while someone else is wielding it. Realistically, imagine yourself in this situation: as a warrior, you are offered a sword for one battle, but the sword weighs practically nothing and cuts better than giants greatsword. Would you pay for such weapon? Knights used lances in combat and oeople pay for perishables all the time.
Given it's perishable nature, I would say it has value only in combat, so the combo would work only in combat.
@@PiiskaJesusFreak You know that you're just making this up to get the result you want. No one will buy a sword that disappears for them in 6 seconds. It's made of shadows not steel. It's has no value because shadows have no value.
@@fortunatus1 I would not buy a sword that lasts for 6 seconds, but I would buy a sword that lasts a minute if it is absurdly powerful like this one is. It's not steel, it's something much better! It's cuts soul instead of flesh wounds creatures impervious to steel! In dim light it's practically invisible and almost impossible to block. And it killing power puts many magical treasures and even some artifacts to shame!
In real world we pay for perishable items like food. We pay for intangible things like roller coaster rides, Netflix subscriptions, stocks, applications and fishing rights. In cloud computing industry, we pay for seconds of computing time. People pay for much less tangible and much shorter lived things than soul cutting monster killing shadows.
Of course, my interpretation relies on the interpretation that giving shadow blade to someone does not count as dropping it or throwing it. A reasonable dm might rule that it does, but equally reasonable dm could deciced that it does not.
@@PiiskaJesusFreak The range/area of the spell is Self so I disagree that a reasonable DM could rule that you can hand it off to another person. And it says that if you drop it or throw it, it disappears... you cannot hand it off to another person/trade it, then it has no tangible value.
The casting of Green Flame Blade or Booming Blade is not an attack action, unless you're using the Bladesinger's rule that allows you to replace one of your attacks during the attack action once you gain the extra attack action. However, if you use your shortsword to make your attack action, and substitute a casting of Booming Blade as one of the attacks within that attack action, then you can use your bonus action to make a weapon attack with your Shadow Blade.
Frankly I don't know why they bothered changing the rules to make it more specific. The spells already stated that you had to make a melee weapon attack to trigger the Blade spells, and it's quite obvious you can't make a melee weapon attack with a component pouch or arcane focus.
Two weapon fighting ia really simple. You do your attack action with one weapon only. Doesn't matter how many times you are allowed to make an attack during your attack action - it is still only one action. Then you are allowed to attack with a different weapon on your bonus action.
So you take the attack action, you attack twice with the shortword in your right hand. And then as the bonus action you can attack once with the dagger in your left hand.
The rules are worded correct and there is no room for interpretation. You are just mixing the attack action with multiple attacks during the said attack action.
The attack action reads:
"The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists."
The fighters multiple attack feature reads:
"You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."
The two weapon fighting reads:
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."
Switching weapons during the attack action is all you guys' wishful thinking.
WOuld you even be able to cast the spell while holding two weapons?You need to use one of your hands to cast the spell.dont you?
That's what the "War Caster" feat is for.
@@markloeffler85 completely forgot about that part the the feat,woops my mistake
That's just wilful reading. Bonus action attack can ONLY be made with your offhand weapon. Since your main weapon attack was with shadowblade, you're going to be using the weapon in your offhand as the bonus action attack. You can be fluid with what you consider your main weapon and offhand though, as there's literally nothing that rules that they have to be static. I allow my players to decide when attacking which one will be their main and their offhand, depending on which one they attack with first.
I get where a lot of people are coming from, but amongst my small circle, this was what pushed both of these spells into the garbage bin after a long while of them having situational uses, Booming Blade ESPECIALLY. Shadow blade is a Nice spell, a REALLY nice spell, but because booming blade cant be used with extra attack (that might have changed, IDK) theres nothing except Smites that Synergize with it anymore. Any Pure spellcasting class wanting to be a bit more melee focused now just lost a BIG CHUNK of their synergy and these cantrips on their own become INCREASINGLY Situational without that synergy. Booming blades initial Damage is nice later on but is Vastly Overshadowed by higher end spells and even some other cantrips, UNLESS the creature moves of it's own Will, which, it could if it's a more ranged focused enemy but if it's a melee attacker, all you've done now is put yourself, a squishy pure caster, in it's range for a Measly extra 3d8 tops.
additionally, if your a melee class and grab Booming blade now your giving up Extra attack, which, depending on your class can range from Annoying to downright terrible depending on the situation. Fighters get gibbed a fair bit, Barbarians and Monks would be OKAY I suppose but Paladins ESSPECIALLY would get Jibbed as its less chances to Smite.
Mind you I'm new-ish to all this, same with my group but DAMN I feel this change was really Unneeded... Yeah your DM can rule it so it works but relying on a DM to be cool isn't the most comfortable thing when you are going into a campaign with a specific build in mind.
Bladesinger’s Extra Attack feature now allows them to cast a cantrip in place of one of their attacks any time they take an attack action. This also means they can now cast a cantrip with their Haste extra attack action.
an entire video just to lay out an argument not follow the shadow blade bb nerf
i wouldn't let booming blade with shadow blade anymore, due to the new cantrip replacement of the bladesinger. you used to have a tradeoff between BB and multiple attacks of your shadow blade, where one or the other would be favored depending on levels, number of extra attacks, etc. having 2 shadow blade attacks + a BB effect on top of it is a little bit too strong imo, since the wizard can easily get very high level shadow blade already. this is exactly the purpose of the new spell spirit shroud, which is more or less a shadow blade effect transposed up by one spell level. There would be no reason for a bladesinger, (except immune to psychic), to ever use spirit shroud if the bladesinger combo can use SB already. on top of that, the combo with spirit shroud is already stronger than 2 normal shadow blade attacks, so still overall a buff. Shadow blade takes a backseat due to this, but remains a thing for the eldritch knight at least, still one of the solid options for EK.
it's just kinda unfortunate that they threw the baby out with the bathwater. This combo got nerfed and bladesingers were buffed -but bladesinger's weren't the only ones using this combo. The incompatibility of these spells nullifies a lot of modest striker roles for warlocks and sorcerers, -and the change in range to self really put the kibosh on any effective sorcerer gish builds without taking 5+ levels of multiclass, -not to mention no longer being able to use this combo for attacks of opportunity with war caster.
@@elliotbryant3459 yeah, EK used the combo at certain levels, especially early, but can still get extra attack with shadow blade, which is still the better option at 3+ attacks, and still alright at low levels so this specific brand of EK will survive. But melee sorcerer to my great dismay got especially shafted with this. No more twin booming blades, which was their only way to attack multiple times with the shadow blade and do good damage, at the cost of resources. So even a nerfed version with spirit shroud instead doesn't work (which would have been fun with a 10 ft whip and spell sniper). booming blade can still be used with warcaster by itself though. overall they gave blade singer an extra combo and left everyone else in the dust for a specific type of builds.
How does the PHB define “value”?
By it having a gp cost listed in said PHB?
@@bencoltman6646 Trick question! The PHB doesn't define value as a universal concept; it just assumes a certain level of understanding markets by the reader. The point is: Value is relative. Something could be worth an sp to someone and worthless to another. There are market standards sure, and the PHB spells these out, but even the DMG says things don't have universal value and it depends who your asking.
Booming Blade specifies the material component needs to be "a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp" but it doesn't to whom it must be worth. The caster? The local market? People assume that since Shadowblade isn't on a chart that it doesn't have a 1sp value; I'm pointing out that the PHB chart doesn't define value as a universal.
@@alex2legit That is a pretty pedantic reading of the rules, using real world logic which has little to no bearing on a game world. I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't have a 1sp cost. And good luck getting a DM to agree to it 'because economic theory'
@@bencoltman6646 Lol that's a pretty lazy argument my dude. Pedants are defined as being excessively concerned with the rules- I'm arguing pedantically as a counter to DEEMPHASIZE the significance of this ruling. If you are the ones saying "well technically Shadow Blade doesn't have a 1 sp cost as listed on the PBH chapter on Equipment and Jeremy Crawford says 'gloom' doesn't have technically have value, therefore my players can't use this combo", then you are the real pedant lol. Just allow it and have fun. I was just meeting the pedantic argument where it was already at.
@@alex2legit There wasn't a ruling, there was an errata, there's a difference. Maybe you think that's pedantry, I think it's just facts and logic. If you're saying that any combo disallowed by RAW is pedantry rather than just the rules, then that's on you, and I'm not really sure how you play a game which is essentially just a list of rules. Sure you can rule that it just works, but you can do that for literally anything so that's not really a valid point.
You're making this more complicated than it needs to be honestly.
Its a sword.
Value is superficial.
I didn’t think shadow blade was worth it before the rule change for an Arcane Trickster. It certainly isn’t worth it now for a Bladesinger
you totally can, that is the best way to use a bladesinger.
Things having no value unless explicitly stated by the rules is such a nonsensical, worldbuilding-wrecking rabbit hole that I wouldn't go down it. Still a funny little dilemma resulting from that.
Well it does create a sort of issue in that spell-created goods that will disappear in 1 minute probably don't have the highest value. But only as trade goods, honestly - if you consider spells to be a service that spellcasters can provide, then spells do in fact have a value!
...huh. I wonder if that creates some unforseen loopholes anywhere.
@@normal6483 I mean... A lot of temporary things have real value. If I was homelessa and built a strawhut it would rot away rather quickly but it would still have immense value to me. So if you were to destroy it, I would ask for compensation based on that value.
A shadowblade most certainly has value due to the abilities it provides you. If someone were to dispell your shadowblade prematurely, you would be in your full right to ask for compensation.
sounds like now you have to have a wagon full of weapons in order to cast the spell
The weapon isn't consumed by the spell. This is the case for all spell components. Material components are not consumed unless the spell description specifically says they are.
??? Just use spirit shroud...its just a better spell lol
You are aware that spirit shroud is a higher level spell?
@@TreantmonksTemple you are aware that is a lvl 3 spell right?
Note that, using a third level slot, shadow blade deals 3d8 + mod psychic damage per hit.
Using a third level slot, Spirit Shroud adds 1d8 of cold / necrotic / radiant to your attacks, and gives a little bit of battlefield control. (Edit: And no HP regain for one round - forgot about that part.)
With shadow blade, you also have advantage on all attacks made with it in dim light or darkness. And shadow blade creates a new weapon, which has the thrown property. So there are situations where shadow blade, cast with a 2nd level slot, can be better than Spirit Shroud.
The main advantage of spirit shroud is that you can stack it with powerful magical weapons of any type (including two-handed weapons, and thus GWM, or with polearms and PAM), but the availability of magic weapons varies greatly from table-to-table, and from campaign-to-campaign.
@@nathansmith9597 I understand now, I maybe biased now cause I'm playing a bladesinger lvl 14... and just adding to your comment, spirit shroud increases at lvls 4, 6, 8.
Plus "any creature of your choice that you can see that starts its turn within 10 feet of you has its speed reduced by 10 feet until the start of your next turn." U can combo with slasher feat
@@TheBlink182ify For sure - both are very powerful spells on the right build. One is not strictly better than the other.
Any dm that dosen’t allow you to split your attack action between hands is kinda a tool. Two handed user use both hands for every attack and d&d is a roleplaying game not a video game. No one wants to play with someone who makes you walk around like a clunky AI, like it literally dosen’t even Matter long term since you’d do collectively less damage than just using shadow blade