Can you give Shadow Blade to an Ally?

[nickl_2000]

So, just a random thought. If I have the Shadow Blade spells memorized, is there a reason I can't summon it then hand it off to my Tabaxi Dex Fighter friend?

The spell says "If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of your turn..." I didn't drop it or throw it, I handed it off to a friend.


I think by RAW my reading works, but would like to hear others opinions, since being able to hand it off could make it a incredible spell.

[Submortimer]

So, just a random thought. If I have the Shadow Blade spells memorized, is there a reason I can't summon it then hand it off to my Tabaxi Dex Fighter friend?

The spell says "If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of your turn..." I didn't drop it or throw it, I handed it off to a friend.


I think by RAW my reading works, but would like to hear others opinions, since being able to hand it off could make it a incredible spell.

Yes, you can. It's the equivalent of casting a buff spell on the character in question, since it requires your concentration.

[nickl_2000]

Yes, you can. It's the equivalent of casting a buff spell on the character in question, since it requires your concentration.

It could be a pretty impressive buff at higher levels, especially in the hands of a fighter who gets 4 attacks a turn + action surge. I cast it as a seventh level spell for 5d8 damage per hit. So, a fighter hitting every attack and action surging could essentially drop 40d8 damage in a single turn.

[Easy_Lee]

This is a DM question. If you go by the RAW, it depends on the definition of the word "drop." I'd allow it as it's not broken by any means and I like to encourage team play.

[Submortimer]

It could be a pretty impressive buff at higher levels, especially in the hands of a fighter who gets 4 attacks a turn + action surge. I cast it as a seventh level spell for 5d8 damage per hit. So, a fighter hitting every attack and action surging could essentially drop 40d8 damage in a single turn.

That seems like an effective use of a 7th level spell slot that requires concentration, then.

Edit: Remember, that 40d8 (avg 180) is single target, and that usefulness also requires that you use your Concentration, have a 20th level fighter handy, he hits with every attack, and that he has action surges to spare.

conversely, I could upcast disintegrate and to 13d6+40 (avg 85.5) from 60 feet away and be done with it.

[Scathain]

That seems like an effective use of a 7th level spell slot that requires concentration, then.

Heck, even just handing it to the rogue at base level is a direct upgrade for a non-magical rapier. Good find, I didn’t notice that wording.

[Easy_Lee]

Heck, even just handing it to the rogue at base level is a direct upgrade for a non-magical rapier. Good find, I didn’t notice that wording.

I'd rather concentrate on stinking cloud, personally. But handing it to a fighter for an extra several D8 of damage, plus advantage if in dim light, is significant.

[nickl_2000]

I'd rather concentrate on stinking cloud, personally. But handing it to a fighter for an extra several D8 of damage, plus advantage if in dim light, is significant.

It's all about the options to me, if I have more options the party as a whole is better. So, if it works I like it

[DivisibleByZero]

"If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of your turn..." is basically saying "if you aren't holding this at the end of your turn."
I would not allow it.

[Provo]

"If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of your turn..." is basically saying "if you aren't holding this at the end of your turn."
I would not allow it.

I have to agree with DivisibleByZero. RAW, it is debatable. RAI, it seems pretty clear that the caster needs to hold it.

That being said, I'd allow it. It encourages team play, it uses concentration, and it is cool.

[dejarnjc]

I honestly wouldn't allow it. Just comparing the language of this spell to the language of "holy weapon" makes it pretty obvious (IMO) that this was mostly intended to be a self buff spell. Also the fact that it's a range of "self" and not a range of "touch".

That being said, I don't think it'd unbalance the game at all. Maybe make it dissipate at the end of the round vs at the end of the turn? The only thing I'd be worried about would be having a character summon the blade, attack with it, hand it off to an ally, have them attack with it, round ends, rinse and repeat.

[Foxhound438]

drop=hand out or no, there is another potential workaround

ioun stone/ring of spell storing would be a good way of getting it to your martials, if you have those items. If you voice that you want one of these specifically to give to an ally, I think a lot of DM's would be okay with making up a side quest to obtain one. If you do manage this, you can even get away with not concentrating on it, since the items make the user cast and concentrate on the spell, so your fighter can concentrate on blade with a better con save while you hold up a wall of force.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I have to agree with DivisibleByZero. RAW, it is debatable. RAI, it seems pretty clear that the caster needs to hold it.

That being said, I'd allow it. It encourages team play, it uses concentration, and it is cool.
Pretty much this.

RAW, I think it works.
RAI, I think it fails.
RAF, I think it's solid.

[Ganymede]

"Ahh, but I didn't throw it. I gingerly set it upon the ground."

"It disappears at the end of your turn. Also, please put a red check mark at the top of your character sheet."

[nickl_2000]

I'm not arguing what others have said, it makes sense from a RAF, RAI, and RAF perspective for all of the above.

The only reason why I brought it up to begin with is that Throwing your weapon is something specifically defined in the PhB as part of an attack action. Whereas dropping your weapon is something that happens when a Battlemaster disarms you.

Seems like it's worth asking my DM to see if its acceptable.

[DarkKnightJin]

Pretty much this.

RAW, I think it works.
RAI, I think it fails.
RAF, I think it's solid.

I agree. Concentration is used, slot is expended, and it helps the team out.
And this way you can make good use of the spell, instead of using it as a last resort, squishy caster got cornered kinda thing. Or as a gish that probably won't make the most of it without specializing into 'abusing' this sort of spell.

[Lombra]

Doesn't seem RAI but I would allow it.

[Arcangel4774]

To repeat what other have said. RAW your fine as technically you didnt drop or throw it. However RAI its intention seems almost certain that it needs to be in your hand. Personal rulinf woukd going to allow it. It might be efficient and strong (not certain, i havent done the math) but if requires teamwork. Personally i think all team work should be encouraged.

[Aembrosia]

What is the target condition of shadow blade? Is it self? Im curious what the contention of "the caster must hold the weapon" becomes when it was triggered from a glyph of warding and there is no caster.

[nickl_2000]

What is the target condition of shadow blade? Is it self? Im curious what the contention of "the caster must hold the weapon" becomes when it was triggered from a glyph of warding and there is no caster.

Casting Time:1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components:V,S
Duration: Concentration,up to 1minute

[Aembrosia]

Cool thank you

[suplee215]

The range of self along with the other conditions seems to imply no. The only RAW argument I see is a semantic argument of what "dropping" means. That said it depends on how the math works on it.

[Typhon]

Use the spell as the basis for a magic sword or create a magic ring that has charges of the spell you could use.