What is the intention between Booming/Green-flame blades requiring a weapon with a value of at least 1sp, when no weapon (in PHB at least) has a value below 1sp?
— Zem (@TheRealZem) November 13, 2020
If a D&D spell’s material component lacks a monetary value and isn’t consumed, you don’t need that component; you could substitute a component pouch, for instance.
Booming/Green-Flame Blade need a weapon with a monetary value because they require an actual weapon. #DnD https://t.co/OTB8kTvQBo
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 13, 2020
So removing the Shadow Blade option is fully intentional? I took the opposite intention out of this. What he seems to be describing is that the spell requires a weapon and that you can't sub out the "material component" for an arcane focus or component pouch. Shadow blade seems like an unintended consequence.
— Brett Richards (@brett_play) November 13, 2020
You're exactly right, @brett_play. The component entries of the two spells were simply incorrect; they didn't follow the rules for how components work. We've corrected them and, as a consequence, some combos that never should have worked no longer work.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 13, 2020
Okay now I’m the one confused. I know in one of your earlier replies, you talked about allowing booming blade and shadow blade to work together. Was removing this interaction intended? Or is it simply how it works now by RAW to standardize wording but isn’t a balance concern. This change has nothing to do with prohibiting or allowing Shadow Blade to combine with Booming/Green-Flame Blade. It's about fixing those two cantrips. As DM, I'd allow those them to combo, since I make liberal use of the rule on improvised weapons.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 13, 2020
My pleasure!
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 13, 2020
