The spell shadow blade allows a spellcaster to produce a discrete weapon that can then be used to make attacks:

You weave together threads of shadow to create a sword of solidified gloom in your hand. This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. It deals 2d8 psychic damage on a hit and has the finesse, light, and thrown properties (range 20/60). In addition, when you use the sword to attack a target that is in dim light or darkness, you make the attack roll with advantage.

Shadow Blade, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, pg. 164

As part of recent errata to the green-flame blade and booming blade cantrips, their material components have been amended to "a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp" (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, 142).

Can shadow blade still produce a weapon that can be used with these cantrips?


6 Answers 6


No, as the blade has no "worth"

Generally speaking, in game terms, "worth" is used to determine how much someone would spend in exchange for one or more items--whether buying or selling:

  • a diamond worth 300 gp
  • tapestries worth 50 gp
  • 10 gp worth of oils and herbs

So one party owns a product, another has gold pieces. The same could be said for trading salt or goats. One item is worth another; usually in an attempt to make an exchange.

But the blade cannot be exchanged

Per the description, "If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn" making the sword "worthless".

SAC V2.6 p. 19:

The intent is the blade vanishes when you let go of it (that’s one of the meanings of the word “drop”).

It should also be noted that the Shadow Blade spell itself, has no material component, so even the caster is not spending money to invoke it.


Only if your DM agrees that the value of the created temporary blade is at least 1sp

Unfortunately, Xanathar's Guide to Everything doesn't have a section that stipulates the value of "Gloom" as a raw material, nor does any other 5e sourcebook (that I'm aware of), so the value of the created blade is indeterminable except by DM ruling.

As DM, I would rule that the blade must have a non-insignificant value

For starters, spells aren't free. Even an 18th level Wizard who has chosen Shadow Blade as one of their "Mastered Spells" (PHB, 112) still places value on A) their time spent casting the spell, and B) the concentration spent maintaining the spell instead of any other spell they'd rather be maintaining.

And if the spell isn't being provided by an 18th level wizard who can produce it at will, then it must be provided by either a character who does have a limit on how many times they can cast it in a day; or a spell scroll, which (for a 2nd level spell) has a value between 100gp and 500gp (depending on whether you use the table in the PHB or the table in Xanathar's Guide to Everything).

So as DM, I would generally maintain that a Shadow Blade must have a value that at least exceeds 1sp.


Following the Rules as Written, no, the spells do not work together. However, Crawford has said removing this interaction is not what they intended when reworking Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade. He tweeted on november 13, 2020: "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."

So since Crawford allows it, I think most DM's should. The reason for the change was that casters were having swords magically appear from their Component Pouches. A Component Pouch contains every spellcasting component without a cost. Previously, Booming Blade did not have a cost, but did require a weapon as the component. Thus, following Rules as Written, every time you cast the spell you could pull out a weapon from your component pouch. They had to fix this, thus the 1sp component was added, since the component now had a cost it couldn't be pulled out of the component pouch.

I hope this helps in making the case to your DM that the two can and should work together!

  • \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to our stack! Please take our tour to learn more about how we operate here and you can also visit the help center for more information. \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Apr 2, 2021 at 13:42
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ You may not be aware, but Crawford's tweets are no longer considered official. Even with that, he has also flip-flopped on some of his twitter statements over time. However, his tweets can give some insight as to what he was thinking when he wrote it and can be used to help guide a table in making decisions. But it shouldn't be "This is The Way." I think you are also guessing at their reasoning, which we try and stay away from here. \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Apr 2, 2021 at 13:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You are making some weird assumptions about the intentions of somebody else. Could you provide the source of them? \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Apr 2, 2021 at 13:49

No. The blade has no worth. And its not a matter of ruling whether it has or not. Spells do exactly what they say, nothing more nothing less. Since the spell doesnt mention that the blade has worth, it automatically doesn't.

Having it have worth is an excellent houserule however. be ready for your players to try to sell it or use it for other purposes that require an items of worth however

  • \$\begingroup\$ We do ask that answers be fully supported by either rules or subjective experience done or seen. You can read more about our citation expectations here. You're doing a great job in becoming active here, but please review your answers with the guidelines and expectations we review in the Meta linked above. \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Mar 26, 2021 at 13:39

Sorry for the necro, but I was looking into this and found the twitter conversation from Jeremy Crawford as was posted about in one of the comments:

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.

As far as I understand it, Jeremy Crawford says he would 'allow it'. This does mean, I think, that by the rules as written it shouldn't work.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ JC’s tweets are not official rulings, so they have nothing to do with “rules as written”. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 30, 2021 at 11:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ I see, my mistake. I thought what he said counted for something. In that case, as the magical blade has no value, at my table I wouldn't allow it to work together with the sword cantrips. \$\endgroup\$
    – Cran
    Oct 31, 2021 at 12:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ They count for something, but that something is up to the reader to decide. I talk about that a bit here. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 31, 2021 at 12:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for the link! Its pretty helpful. I've on occasion used his JC's tweets to settle disputes at my table, and didn't know they weren't official. I'll stop derailing this thread now, but thanks for the info! \$\endgroup\$
    – Cran
    Oct 31, 2021 at 12:47

If you can duel wield, holding a dagger in one hand, and the shadow blade in the other should work. The dagger will satisfy the value. The spell does not state that the valued weapon is the one to deliver the spell effect.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Hmmm, there's an interesting approach. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 13, 2020 at 16:22
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you." I think it's pretty clear that the valued weapon must be the one to make the attack. That text is in both booming blade and green-flame blade. \$\endgroup\$
    – smbailey
    Nov 13, 2020 at 16:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .