Can/Shoud bladesingers use two-weapon fighting?

[Witty Username]

So Reading though bladesinger, and bladesong and it seems like you can use two weapons while bladesong is active. Does this work? Is it a good idea?

My only thought is that you could whip out a shadowblade, and be able to use it for your weapon and use your normal weapon for Booming/Green-Flame blade. And if you got a light weapon a bonus action attack on later turns.

[Unoriginal]

So Reading though bladesinger, and bladesong and it seems like you can use two weapons while bladesong is active. Does this work? Is it a good idea?

They can use two-weapon fighting, but given that:

a) it eats their bonus action, each turn

b) limits the weapons they can use

c) *cannot* be used with an attack cantrip until lvl 6

d) doesn't particularly benefit the Bladesinger as it only adds a bit of damage (Bladesinger are hardly a class that benefits that greatly from having one more attack)


It's hardly worth doing it. Spending feats on it may make it better, but even then it's expensive.



My only thought is that you could whip out a shadowblade, and be able to use it for your weapon and use your normal weapon for Booming/Green-Flame blade. And if you got a light weapon a bonus action attack on later turns.

I don't think you can two-weapon fight with a shadowblade and a physical weapon.

[Galithar]

I don't think you can two-weapon fight with a shadowblade and a physical weapon.

You can. Shadow Blade explicitly created a weapon with the finesse, light, and thrown properties. Edit for completeness: It's also a simple weapon with which you are proficient.
It can't be used with the spell Flame Blade as that one allows you to use your action to make a melee spell attack instead of actually creating a weapon.

[Unoriginal]

You can. Shadow Blade explicitly created a weapon with the finesse, light, and thrown properties. Edit for completeness: It's also a simple weapon with which you are proficient.
It can't be used with the spell Flame Blade as that one allows you to use your action to make a melee spell attack instead of actually creating a weapon.

I see, thanks for the correction.

In that case, at lvl 6+, a Bladesinger could use the Attack action with Shadow Blade, use Booming/Green Flame Blade with the Extra attack (thanks to their new feature) with their physical weapon, then bonus action attack with their physical weapon.

[Alek]

I see, thanks for the correction.

In that case, at lvl 6+, a Bladesinger could use the Attack action with Shadow Blade, use Booming/Green Flame Blade with the Extra attack (thanks to their new feature) with their physical weapon, then bonus action attack with their physical weapon.

Yes all correct just remember the second/off hand weapon most be light like a short sword for example.

Other good options are Haste with 2 light weapons
1st attack 1d6 + 1d8 gfb + modifier
2st attack 1d6 + modifier
Extra attack 1d6 + modifier
Bonus action attack 1d6

Also now Spirit Shrouds is interesting
1st attack 1d6 +1d8 gfb +1d8 SS + modifier
2st attack 1d6 +1d8 SS + modifier
Bonus action attack 1d6 + 1d8 SS

Just remember to have a free hand before casting then you can wield the second sword

[bendking]

I mean, they can, but Bladesingers already waste both of their first bonus actions on Bladesong and summoning Shadow Blade, so you'll only be able to do it on your 3rd turn.
The other problem is that it takes your free hand, so you'd have to drop your weapon and pick it up every time you cast a spell if you have Shadowblade on your main-hand.

[Gale]

You can use two-weapon fighting while using Bladesong. Is it a good idea? It depends.

Before level 5 using either Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade with a rapier is marginally better than TWF using shortswords if you can get the spells' effects to activate. However, that's unlikely to always be true, so you're better off doing TWF when you know neither cantrips are going to be helpful. Since a plain rapier swing is significantly less damage than two-weapon fighting with shortswords I would suggest using shortswords as your primary weapon in the early game.

At level 3 you get access to Shadowblade, which according to Jeremy Crawford should work with Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade without needing any workarounds. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326925328267177984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1326925328267177984%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2020%2F1 1%2F18%2Fdoes-the-monetary-value-of-the-component-now-negate-being-able-to-use-your-pact-of-the-blade-weapon-or-shadow-blade-in-conjunction-with-booming-blade%2F) Shadowblade is awesome. You can two-weapon fight with it and a shortsword for an average damage per round of 15.5 if all your attacks hit. If you choose to cast Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade instead than you do 16.5 damage, assuming everything works in your favor and the spell effects go off. The difference between both options here is pretty negligible, but Booming Blade has the potential to stop an enemy from moving.

At level 5 Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade do extra damage on hit, meaning you should always use them and ignore TWF entirely.

At level 6 you get Extra Attack and can now substitute one of your attacks for a cantrip. This basically means that from now on you can always do TWF and have no excuse not to.

In short, yes two-weapon fighting is good. The only difficulty is that Bladesingers often spend their bonus actions doing something other than two-weapon fighting. Bladesong, Shadowblade, and Spirit Shroud all take bonus actions to use, as well as many other spells. So how often you can actually do it is questionable. But there's no real reason not to carry a shortsword in your other hand for when the opportunities arises. Your only other option is to ditch TWF in order to use a rapier, but that only increases your damage by +1 which isn't worth it if you're missing out on multiple attacks.

On another note, it's worth mentioning that it can be tricky to cast spells while two-weapon fighting because both your hands are full. You might have to get creative if your DM is particular strict with their rulings on drawing and storing items. Typically, my solution would be to wear a spell focus (crystal) around my neck, which can be dropped as a free action. It shouldn't need to be drawn (hopefully) in order to use it, you just need a hand free. So you can drop one of your weapons as a free action, reach up and grab the focus to cast your spell, then pick up the weapon (Use an Object action.) You can obviously skip grabbing the focus if the spell has no material component.

[Bilbron]

So Reading though bladesinger, and bladesong and it seems like you can use two weapons while bladesong is active. Does this work? Is it a good idea?

My only thought is that you could whip out a shadowblade, and be able to use it for your weapon and use your normal weapon for Booming/Green-Flame blade. And if you got a light weapon a bonus action attack on later turns.

I just went through a Bladesinger optimization and suggested 2 weapons. The ensuing discussion made me rethink that route and I now believe a single heavier weapon is superior. Absent Dual Weilder Feat, the weapons have to be Shortswords or Scimitars, so d6 vs d8, or +2.5 damage if both attacks hit and probably around +1.5 damage taking into account hit rates on the offhand weapon. Meanwhile, without War Caster it's tough to cast spells with swords in both hands as you can't manipulate a focus without a free hand, and even if you do have one, having a sword in the other means you can't cast spells with S components but not M components. YMMV depending on how OCD the DM is, but RAW it's super unwieldy.

[Dork_Forge]

I just went through a Bladesinger optimization and suggested 2 weapons. The ensuing discussion made me rethink that route and I now believe a single heavier weapon is superior. Absent Dual Weilder Feat, the weapons have to be Shortswords or Scimitars, so d6 vs d8, or +2.5 damage if both attacks hit and probably around +1.5 damage taking into account hit rates on the offhand weapon. Meanwhile, without War Caster it's tough to cast spells with swords in both hands as you can't manipulate a focus without a free hand, and even if you do have one, having a sword in the other means you can't cast spells with S components but not M components. YMMV depending on how OCD the DM is, but RAW it's super unwieldy.

TWF will always be superior weapon damage if you're only going up to a Rapier and don't have any add on damage: going d6-d8 is only on average one more point of damage whereas an offhand attack is worth 3.5 damage, leaving you 2.5 damage up before 6th level and 1.5 after 6th level. Hit chance is irrelevant as your hit chance is the same whether you're attacking with your main hand or off hand, if anything hit chance favours TWF as it gives you another opportunity to hit.

For the Bladesinger in particular, TWF is a good option all around except at 5th level, before then melee cantrips don't deal extra attack on a hit (and counting on rider damage is near useless) and at 6th and above you can use a melee cantrip and still proc TWF. Shadow Blade is a fantastic TWF compatible damage buff.

TWF can make casting tricky, Warcaster is a valuable pick on a TWF/S+B Gish but on a Baldesinger you shouldn't be relying on spells for the most part that aren't buffs or situational in nature (this is if you're actually going the Gish route instead of just playing a normal Wizard with Bladesinger as the subclass).

[Bilbron]

TWF will always be superior weapon damage if you're only going up to a Rapier and don't have any add on damage: going d6-d8 is only on average one more point of damage whereas an offhand attack is worth 3.5 damage, leaving you 2.5 damage up before 6th level and 1.5 after 6th level. Hit chance is irrelevant as your hit chance is the same whether you're attacking with your main hand or off hand, if anything hit chance favours TWF as it gives you another opportunity to hit.

For the Bladesinger in particular, TWF is a good option all around except at 5th level, before then melee cantrips don't deal extra attack on a hit (and counting on rider damage is near useless) and at 6th and above you can use a melee cantrip and still proc TWF. Shadow Blade is a fantastic TWF compatible damage buff.

TWF can make casting tricky, Warcaster is a valuable pick on a TWF/S+B Gish but on a Baldesinger you shouldn't be relying on spells for the most part that aren't buffs or situational in nature (this is if you're actually going the Gish route instead of just playing a normal Wizard with Bladesinger as the subclass).

Fair arguments... Bladesinger can really go in a lot of different directions, depending on how much they intend to melee. Once they get to 4th level spells I think they end up casting more and more, since the spells have so much more impact, so optimizations for early levels can start to become dead weight. This is one of those subdomains where I would definitely try to balance optimizing over the long-term and the short-term both.

[Dork_Forge]

Fair arguments... Bladesinger can really go in a lot of different directions, depending on how much they intend to melee. Once they get to 4th level spells I think they end up casting more and more, since the spells have so much more impact, so optimizations for early levels can start to become dead weight. This is one of those subdomains where I would definitely try to balance optimizing over the long-term and the short-term both.

The PC that switches over to general casting as a primary at some point probably would have been better off playing a different Wizard to begin with. Going higher in level also just opens up the Bladesinger more as:

-Weapon cantrips provide scaling bonus damage
-Upcasting Shadow Blade provides more than acceptable scaling damage
-As time passes the liklihood of magical weapon drops increases
-As more ASIs come and go the potential to grab feats increases

On 4th level spells and above in general:

I'm just not seeing it? There's no spells they get at that level that are 'omg yes' that would actually take them out of melee:

-Polymorph: If someone else this has no impact on you other than losing a turn, if on you, well that's probably just a bad choice all round

-Summon spells: fight alongside your summons, it's not like you're likely to lose concentration anyway

Even when higher level spells that are too powerful to ignore come online, their use is so heavily limited by available slots at that level that unless you're in a 5mwd style game you're not going to be relying on those options anyway (and no reason you can't shift back into melee when they're cast or cast them whilst in melee).

[Nod_Hero]

On another note, it's worth mentioning that it can be tricky to cast spells while two-weapon fighting because both your hands are full. You might have to get creative if your DM is particular strict with their rulings on drawing and storing items. Typically, my solution would be to wear a spell focus (crystal) around my neck, which can be dropped as a free action. It shouldn't need to be drawn (hopefully) in order to use it, you just need a hand free. So you can drop one of your weapons as a free action, reach up and grab the focus to cast your spell, then pick up the weapon (Use an Object action.) You can obviously skip grabbing the focus if the spell has no material component.

Early levels before there's more powerful things to use the attunement slots on, a Ruby of the War Mage on the physical weapon is very helpful towards this predicament.

[Witty Username]

I just went through a Bladesinger optimization and suggested 2 weapons. The ensuing discussion made me rethink that route and I now believe a single heavier weapon is superior. Absent Dual Weilder Feat, the weapons have to be Shortswords or Scimitars, so d6 vs d8, or +2.5 damage if both attacks hit and probably around +1.5 damage taking into account hit rates on the offhand weapon. Meanwhile, without War Caster it's tough to cast spells with swords in both hands as you can't manipulate a focus without a free hand, and even if you do have one, having a sword in the other means you can't cast spells with S components but not M components. YMMV depending on how OCD the DM is, but RAW it's super unwieldy.

I feel like war caster is something the bladesinger would want anyway for the advantage to concentration saves, and booming blade opportunity attacks.

[Asmerv]

Perhaps an argument for it more out of flavor than anything else, but I always envisioned that Haste + TWF creates a really flavorful combat style.

You can use the Attack action from haste to trigger TWF's Bonus Action attack and get two attacks while still using your action to cast spells. Feels very gishy to me. Never got to try this yet though so I might be missing something.

Can pick up two weapon fighting style from the feat at level 4 in preparation and play that way. It would probably start feeling like a waste of concentration eventually, but could be very cool for 5-13.

[Gignere]

Perhaps an argument for it more out of flavor than anything else, but I always envisioned that Haste + TWF creates a really flavorful combat style.

You can use the Attack action from haste to trigger TWF's Bonus Action attack and get two attacks while still using your action to cast spells. Feels very gishy to me. Never got to try this yet though so I might be missing something.

Can pick up two weapon fighting style from the feat at level 4 in preparation and play that way. It would probably start feeling like a waste of concentration eventually, but could be very cool for 5-13.

This will absolutely require warcaster unless you’re dropping one of the weapons, after your attacks.

[Evaar]

You can do it. Is it worth doing? Sort of.

If you're trying to fit the Bladesinger's square peg into the melee-focused square hole, then yeah dual wielding is potentially valuable. Bladesingers eventually get options to add a static damage bonus to attacks, so each attack is more valuable. That's high level though.

But mostly a Bladesinger is a wizard who can survive in melee, rather than a melee-focused character. If you're focusing on doing what the class does best, dual wielding is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I'd refer you to this thread:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?540778-GUIDE-Inquisitor-Lim-s-Bladesinger-and-Wizard-Guide-Xanathar-s-Edition

Deathtongue's guide is solid and I see he's added some commentary for Tasha's, which is better than a lot of guides are doing. He also links to another guide in there by Nadrigol, and that guide is more focused on being a melee/gish character. I'd say read Deathtongue's guide and if you still want to focus on melee, read Nadrigol's guide.

[RingoBongo]

I fancy taking telekinetic feat and using your bonus action to shove people. In my build right now I wouldn't use twf unless I was, as others have said, a higher level when it's possible to add int to damage and when I have a better to hit chance than just starting out.

[MrCharlie]

This will absolutely require warcaster unless you’re dropping one of the weapons, after your attacks.
Or sheathing a weapon after your attack, then casting the spell. Then casting a spell the next turn, before drawing the weapon and making your attacks.

Anyway, it's worth noting that you can make one attack with the shadowblade, booming blade with another light weapon, then bonus action attack with shadowblade. You've made an attack with a one-handed light weapon as part of the attack action even if you alternate which weapon is used for extra attack feature, and nothing in the game prevents switching up which weapon is used for extra attack.

This works even better if the shadowblade can be used with booming blade, in which case your best bet is probably to use the shadow blade for all your normal attacks then make an off-hand attack with a regular weapon, assuming the shadowblade does more damage than whatever you swing with normally, taking into account any to hit bonuses from magic weapons in addition to raw damage bonuses.

Is this a good idea? Well, it's better than simply casting cantrips around, is probably quite good at level 3-4, and remains somewhat viable at higher levels. The real problem, like most bladesinger builds, is that once a high amount of unavoidable damage (such as saving throws you can't absorb elements against or aura damage) being a melee bladesinger becomes less attractive, given that you still have a wizards hit points, usually an elves CON modifier, and AC is only part of the battle. In that sense being a Gish at all stops looking good, which is where bladesinger starts being suboptimal.

[kazaryu]

Or sheathing a weapon after your attack, then casting the spell. Then casting a spell the next turn, before drawing the weapon and making your attacks.

Anyway, it's worth noting that you can make one attack with the shadowblade, booming blade with another light weapon, then bonus action attack with shadowblade. You've made an attack with a one-handed light weapon as part of the attack action even if you alternate which weapon is used for extra attack feature, and nothing in the game prevents switching up which weapon is used for extra attack.



but....you don't gain anything from doing that. i mean, you *can* do it, but there's really no point to. in either case your damage is still gonna be (shadow bladex2+booming blade+light weapon+abilitymodx2). changing the order those attacks occur in affects nothing.

[Gignere]

but....you don't gain anything from doing that. i mean, you *can* do it, but there's really no point to. in either case your damage is still gonna be (shadow bladex2+booming blade+light weapon+abilitymodx2). changing the order those attacks occur in affects nothing.

It does matter if your DM rules SB is incompatible with the new BB. It’s the only way to combine BB with SB.

[Gignere]

but....you don't gain anything from doing that. i mean, you *can* do it, but there's really no point to. in either case your damage is still gonna be (shadow bladex2+booming blade+light weapon+abilitymodx2). changing the order those attacks occur in affects nothing.

It does matter if your DM rules SB is incompatible with the new BB. It’s the only way to combine BB with SB in the same turn.

[Witty Username]

It does matter if your DM rules SB is incompatible with the new BB. It’s the only way to combine BB with SB.

With more clarity, If you are already planning on two-weapon fighting then the SB+BB order of operations is negligible. However, If BB can't be used with shadow blade, then SB + light weapon/BB + off-hand SB is the only way to get two SB attacks and benefit from BB.


It does matter if your DM rules SB is incompatible with the new BB. It’s the only way to combine BB with SB.

With more clarity, If you are already planning on two-weapon fighting then the SB+BB order of operations is negligible. However, If BB can't be used with shadow blade, then SB + light weapon/BB + off-hand SB is the only way to get two SB attacks and benefit from BB.


:smallbiggrin:

[kazaryu]

It does matter if your DM rules SB is incompatible with the new BB. It’s the only way to combine BB with SB in the same turn.

ok...is that a really common homebrew? because there's really no grey area in there, the spells explicitly should work together. (also, why 'the new' bb specifically. besides the range change, did they change anything about bb that im missing?

[Galithar]

ok...is that a really common homebrew? because there's really no grey area in there, the spells explicitly should work together. (also, why 'the new' bb specifically. besides the range change, did they change anything about bb that im missing?

They added a cost to the material component of 1 sp. It becomes a grey area since no cost of the Shadow Blade is explicitly listed.

Why they thought this was needed I couldn't tell you. It seems like a pointless adjustment to me. Some have said "so you can't pull unlimited greatswords out of your component pouch" which is just an asinine argument. You've never been able to retrieve components from your component pouch to use for any purpose other than casting spells to begin with, additionally you have to make an attack as part of casting the spell. Meaning if you tried to cast the spell without a component (by substituting a focus) then the spell fails.

I don't think this should make it a grey area, just assume the shadow Blade has the same value as the weapon it most closely resembles. A dagger with value 2 gp.

[Unoriginal]

Why they thought this was needed I couldn't tell you. It seems like a pointless adjustment to me. Some have said "so you can't pull unlimited greatswords out of your component pouch" which is just an asinine argument. You've never been able to retrieve components from your component pouch to use for any purpose other than casting spells to begin with

The argument isn't literally "you can generate infinite greatswords", but "without a component with a cost, you can use a component pouch to cast Booming Blade without a blade".



additionally you have to make an attack as part of casting the spell. Meaning if you tried to cast the spell without a component (by substituting a focus) then the spell fails.

There is no such rule in any book.

[Galithar]

There is no such rule in any book.
Edit: to clarify this first quote is from SCAG.

"As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails."

It's literally the first sentence of the spell.

Edit to add Tasha's wording:

"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. On a hit, the target
suffers the weapon attack's normal effects..."

Less explicit, but it clearly states that the weapon used in the spells casting must be used to make a melee attack and hit. No attack that hits, no spell effect. No component pouch can replicate this, period. Though you are correct that it is less explicitly so in the new wording.

[kazaryu]

They added a cost to the material component of 1 sp. It becomes a grey area since no cost of the Shadow Blade is explicitly listed.

Why they thought this was needed I couldn't tell you. It seems like a pointless adjustment to me. Some have said "so you can't pull unlimited greatswords out of your component pouch" which is just an asinine argument. You've never been able to retrieve components from your component pouch to use for any purpose other than casting spells to begin with, additionally you have to make an attack as part of casting the spell. Meaning if you tried to cast the spell without a component (by substituting a focus) then the spell fails.

I don't think this should make it a grey area, just assume the shadow Blade has the same value as the weapon it most closely resembles. A dagger with value 2 gp.
ahhhh, yeah that'd do it...oof.

but no, i don't think the change was made to fix anyting with the M cost itself. the only reason (that i can think of) for this change is to exclude 0 cost weapons. i.e....summoned ones. it seems almost explicitly like a nerf to this exact combo.

and i agree that it still lack grey area...teh combo no longer works as written. I can understand why they'd do it. SB+cantrip damge per round *is* pretty good per turn damage. may not be necessary, but yeah, i can see why you'd wanna point it out now.

[Unoriginal]

Edit: to clarify this first quote is from SCAG.

"As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails."

It's literally the first sentence of the spell.

Edit to add Tasha's wording:

"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. On a hit, the target
suffers the weapon attack's normal effects..."

Less explicit, but it clearly states that the weapon used in the spells casting must be used to make a melee attack and hit. No attack that hits, no spell effect. No component pouch can replicate this, period. Though you are correct that it is less explicitly so in the new wording.

I apologize, I misunderstood what you meant.

[Galithar]

I apologize, I misunderstood what you meant.

No worries :)

I posted that and then immediately scrambled because I hadn't fully read the Tasha's version yet. I just knew about the 1 sp from another poster in another thread. So I got a little learning Eskridge experience (I'm on mobile... autocorrect, but it made me laugh so I just crossed it out) from it haha

[Tanarii]

Hit chance is irrelevant as your hit chance is the same whether you're attacking with your main hand or off hand, if anything hit chance favours TWF as it gives you another opportunity to hit.
Minor quibble (meaning it doesn't dispute your point), hit chance is technically not irrelevant. The damage curves of H*(1d8+mod) is different from H*(1d6+mod)+H*(1d6). It's still obviously superior in this case though.
https://anydice.com/program/1f333

DPR doesn't tell the whole story when it comes to comparisons to TWF or other things that change the number of attacks. This mostly matters for e.g. comparing Greatsword to 2 Shortswords or Firebolt to EB.

[Witty Username]

ahhhh, yeah that'd do it...oof.

but no, i don't think the change was made to fix anyting with the M cost itself. the only reason (that i can think of) for this change is to exclude 0 cost weapons. i.e....summoned ones. it seems almost explicitly like a nerf to this exact combo.

and i agree that it still lack grey area...teh combo no longer works as written. I can understand why they'd do it. SB+cantrip damge per round *is* pretty good per turn damage. may not be necessary, but yeah, i can see why you'd wanna point it out now.

According to Jeremy Crawford, "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."Oh, and a link to the full conversation (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1327132714013782017)

In the full conversation, it seems like clarifying that the material component can't be replaced with a focus was the goal. However, it is also clear that SB+BB or SB+GFB is not available by strict RAW.

[Gignere]

According to Jeremy Crawford, "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."Oh, and a link to the full conversation (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1327132714013782017)

In the full conversation, it seems like clarifying that the material component can't be replaced with a focus was the goal. However, it is also clear that SB+BB or SB+GFB is not available by strict RAW.

It looks like they wanted to prevent monks with access to arcane foci from punching with BB/GFB.

[cutlery]

According to Jeremy Crawford, "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."Oh, and a link to the full conversation (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1327132714013782017)

That just sounds like confused backpedaling. I don't think they even considered shadowblade paired with cantrip attacks because before TCoE only Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights really did it much, and it's clear they don't even think about those subclasses anymore.

[MrCharlie]

but....you don't gain anything from doing that. i mean, you *can* do it, but there's really no point to. in either case your damage is still gonna be (shadow bladex2+booming blade+light weapon+abilitymodx2). changing the order those attacks occur in affects nothing.
As others have clarified, if you can't booming blade with the shadowblade then you need to do this to attack twice with it-which is really just a trivial statement, but not everyone realizes they can mix up handedness for their weapon attacks.

As an minor aside, using your shadowblade to booming blade also impacts your damage because you may have advantage with the shadow blade attacks, and advantage = more to hit = more damage.

While there are specific situations where something like a +3 weapon might be better than using the shadow blade to increase the hit chance, in practice advantage is usually better.

(The exact math is likely complicated, but only relevant at low hit chances where 15% is higher than the advantage break point-and even then the fact that advantage also increase crit chance makes the optimization trivial).

Anyway, in that sense order does matter, somewhat. Shadow Blade is best used on the main hand attacks because they do more damage.

[Witty Username]

Question that occurs, is the cantrip part of the attack action? and are attacks from the cantrip also part of the attack action?
If one of these is a no, alot of what we are discussing is moot.
Or rather you could attack with shadow blade on the attack action or the bonus action but not both.

[kazaryu]

According to Jeremy Crawford, "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."Oh, and a link to the full conversation (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1327132714013782017)

In the full conversation, it seems like clarifying that the material component can't be replaced with a focus was the goal. However, it is also clear that SB+BB or SB+GFB is not available by strict RAW.
tbh, i don't really trust....basically anything crawford says. He seems to just...say things. A lot of which doesn't make much sense (to me). for example magic missile. i've read MM several times, and i *still* can't fathom how it any way implies that you're meant to only make a single damage roll. Unless they erratta'd it later to fix the wording, nothing about it implies that you should be able to do things like the nuclear wizard. and the fact that crawford approved the combo is just....mind boggling. not becuase its just that strong (i mean, it is, but thats not really the point[/i]. but because the only way i can think that someone could interpret it like that, is either they're terrible at reading english, or they're deliberately looking to break things.

It looks like they wanted to prevent monks with access to arcane foci from punching with BB/GFB.

but...why? monks can use weapons anyway, it doesn't prevent monks from actually casting gfb/bb and dealing the same, or even more damage.

[Galithar]

Question that occurs, is the cantrip part of the attack action? and are attacks from the cantrip also part of the attack action?
If one of these is a no, alot of what we are discussing is moot.
Or rather you could attack with shadow blade on the attack action or the bonus action but not both.

The new Bladesinger in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has a level 6 feature that allows them to replace an attack from the attack action with the casting of a cantrip.

"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."


My personal opinion is that if anyone got that feature it should have been EK, but WoTC won't hire me and let me rewrite all their books for some reason. :shrug:

[Valmark]

I don't like the idea of a bladesinger dual-wielder mechanically. I'm generally using the bonus action, at least for the first rounds, to cast spells or trigger features- so investing in the option seems kind of a counter-productive choice.


tbh, i don't really trust....basically anything crawford says. He seems to just...say things. A lot of which doesn't make much sense (to me). for example magic missile. i've read MM several times, and i *still* can't fathom how it any way implies that you're meant to only make a single damage roll. Unless they erratta'd it later to fix the wording, nothing about it implies that you should be able to do things like the nuclear wizard. and the fact that crawford approved the combo is just....mind boggling. not becuase its just that strong (i mean, it is, but thats not really the point[/i]. but because the only way i can think that someone could interpret it like that, is either they're terrible at reading english, or they're deliberately looking to break things.


but...why? monks can use weapons anyway, it doesn't prevent monks from actually casting gfb/bb and dealing the same, or even more damage.

Because Magic Missile says that the darts strike "simultaneously" and you roll damage once in that case.

Gonna echo that about monks- they couldn't cast with their punches anyway, unarmed strikes aren't weapons (regardless of the fact that they can use weapons) and it asked for an attack with a weapon, not a weapon attack.
Which I guess ties into the fact that they thought one could use just a component pouch when the spell's text explicitely asked for a weapon. Think I'll remove the cost in my campaigns.

[kazaryu]

I don't like the idea of a bladesinger dual-wielder mechanically.



Because Magic Missile says that the darts strike "simultaneously" and you roll damage once in that case.



and this right here just feels like a reach to me. as i said. like, i get that people think differently....i just can't fathom how anyone could read MM and reach that interpretation honestly. and by honestly i mean like...without actively looking for a way to break it. in other words, without having realized that due to some shenanigans that the wording leaves it open to be misinterpreted 'safely'.

so like, i can't see how anyone reading the spell for the first time goes 'huh, i guess that means you just roll once.' and later reading the evoker features goes 'neat, this means i can multiply my intelligence damage by attacking the same target'. its fairly obviously not how that interaction was intended (or more likely, it wasn't a combination that they thought people would try, because noone at wizards looked at the rules from the perspective of a rules lawyer). and the fact that Crawford jsut went 'huh, yeah i guess that works' instead of something along the lines of 'well...that shouldn't work, but i guess technically it does as written' means i don't really trust....anything he says. although tbf, its not *just* that, there are a few others that i disagree with. for example the way he ruled wildshape interacting with PWK or disintegrate are similarly suspect. but at least *those* are a more reasonable way of reading the rules.

[Valmark]

and this right here just feels like a reach to me. as i said. like, i get that people think differently....i just can't fathom how anyone could read MM and reach that interpretation honestly. and by honestly i mean like...without actively looking for a way to break it. in other words, without having realized that due to some shenanigans that the wording leaves it open to be misinterpreted 'safely'.

so like, i can't see how anyone reading the spell for the first time goes 'huh, i guess that means you just roll once.' and later reading the evoker features goes 'neat, this means i can multiply my intelligence damage by attacking the same target'. its fairly obviously not how that interaction was intended (or more likely, it wasn't a combination that they thought people would try, because noone at wizards looked at the rules from the perspective of a rules lawyer). and the fact that Crawford jsut went 'huh, yeah i guess that works' instead of something along the lines of 'well...that shouldn't work, but i guess technically it does as written' means i don't really trust....anything he says. although tbf, its not *just* that, there are a few others that i disagree with. for example the way he ruled wildshape interacting with PWK or disintegrate are similarly suspect. but at least *those* are a more reasonable way of reading the rules.

Yeah, even some things in Sage Advice don't make sense (READ: The ruling on Divine Smite and punches is blatantly wrong). IMO I'd allow it just for the giggles- I'm not worried of a combo that is blocked by a level 1 spell (also because hardly anyone actually builds for that).

Going back to BB/GFB specifically I'm more confused by the fact that JC mentions improvised weapons. I really don't follow how those have anything to do with the question asked about Shadow Blade.

[aadu]

Its definitely worth carrying a shortsword to always have this use of your BA.

[Witty Username]

The new Bladesinger in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything has a level 6 feature that allows them to replace an attack from the attack action with the casting of a cantrip.

"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."


My personal opinion is that if anyone got that feature it should have been EK, but WoTC won't hire me and let me rewrite all their books for some reason. :shrug:

I would definitely agree with an EK house rule of getting this in.

What I was more asking is the weapon attack from a SCAG( or TCOE as the case may be) part of the attack action because the spell is a part of the attack action? I ask because I am not sure, it feels right but I am not sure if there are any rules on it.

[Dork_Forge]

I would definitely agree with an EK house rule of getting this in.

What I was more asking is the weapon attack from a SCAG( or TCOE as the case may be) part of the attack action because the spell is a part of the attack action? I ask because I am not sure, it feels right but I am not sure if there are any rules on it.

If all you do is cast a SCAGtrip, then you are not eligible for TWF because you haven't taken the attack action. You've cast a spell, part of which is making a weapon attack.

At 6th level you can use the new Extra Attack to use a SCAGtrip as part of the attack action, which makes it compatible with TWF.

[Witty Username]

Ok then, I will consider my feelings on the matter justified.

[Meichrob7]

I think the only super viable option is the much discussed SB offhand where you also make one attack with it during your main attack action, one of the weapon attack cantrips with your sword that costs enough, and then a bonus action attack with the SB.

The issue for me here that you’re now giving up the ability to cast a lot of spells (unless you get heavy investment via a feat and a magic item) and you lose the ability to hold concentration on anything else.

Having played the old bladesinger once ages ago and the new one recently from level 1-8, I can say that generally it felt more beneficial to focus on other things.

In an under dark campaign I’d be tempted to maybe focus more on shadow blade, but it feels like it’s not much better than something like dragon’s breath in a familiar, until level 6 when you’re making multiple attacks with the shadow blade.

However at that point you’re also likely starting to find it be able to afford magic items which diminish the value of shadow blade, and you also get the option to concentrate on some higher level spells which also devalues shadow blade.

To me it just doesn’t feel worth the investment and at low levels I’d rather use dragon’s breath on a familiar, so if I’m not gonna be guaranteed in darkness often I don’t think shadow blade is worth it, and if shadow blade isn’t gonna be used then twin weapon fighting doesn’t feel appropriate either.

All that being said, I think SB and TWF are strong Enough. I certainly didn’t make every decision based on optimization, I’m planning on getting animate objects and running around with flying swords slashing the enemies I attack. That’s probably not the best use of the spell but it’s good Enough and it’s fun.

So in that respect, they CAN but they probably SHOULDN’T (or at least it’s not true that they Should).

[Dork_Forge]

I think the only super viable option is the much discussed SB offhand where you also make one attack with it during your main attack action, one of the weapon attack cantrips with your sword that costs enough, and then a bonus action attack with the SB.

The issue for me here that you’re now giving up the ability to cast a lot of spells (unless you get heavy investment via a feat and a magic item) and you lose the ability to hold concentration on anything else.

Having played the old bladesinger once ages ago and the new one recently from level 1-8, I can say that generally it felt more beneficial to focus on other things.

In an under dark campaign I’d be tempted to maybe focus more on shadow blade, but it feels like it’s not much better than something like dragon’s breath in a familiar, until level 6 when you’re making multiple attacks with the shadow blade.

However at that point you’re also likely starting to find it be able to afford magic items which diminish the value of shadow blade, and you also get the option to concentrate on some higher level spells which also devalues shadow blade.

To me it just doesn’t feel worth the investment and at low levels I’d rather use dragon’s breath on a familiar, so if I’m not gonna be guaranteed in darkness often I don’t think shadow blade is worth it, and if shadow blade isn’t gonna be used then twin weapon fighting doesn’t feel appropriate either.

All that being said, I think SB and TWF are strong Enough. I certainly didn’t make every decision based on optimization, I’m planning on getting animate objects and running around with flying swords slashing the enemies I attack. That’s probably not the best use of the spell but it’s good Enough and it’s fun.

So in that respect, they CAN but they probably SHOULDN’T (or at least it’s not true that they Should).

You can also just use Spirit Shroud and add a d8 to all of your attacks (including the cantrip) which ends up being better damage than Shadow Blade. Comes online a couple levels later, but 5 isn't that late.

[Gignere]

You can also just use Spirit Shroud and add a d8 to all of your attacks (including the cantrip) which ends up being better damage than Shadow Blade. Comes online a couple levels later, but 5 isn't that late.

Not if you cast SB with the same slot level and in dim light.

[Witty Username]

SB 3rd vs SS.

SB +2d8 over one attack second weapon uses cantrip,+4d8 damage over two attacks no cantrip without twf
SS +2d8 damage over two attacks get cantrip, if twf +3d8 over three attacks

It seems like SB is better if you have it and are already and are planning on twf, and about equal in other area (if you are using shadow blade exclusively the lack of cantrip does hurt).

I would say that shadow blade can come up in niche cases more, because you can cast it on other people or with a 2nd level slot.