Why no "green flame arrow" / "booming bolt" cantrip a in SCAG?

[Spacehamster]

Any idea why they did not make any ranged weapon cantrip while they were at it? :)

[Spacehamster]

Or a rogue subclass centered around this, arcane archer that can imbue his arrows/bolts with different types of effects. :)

[GanonBoar]

In my opinion, it's to prevent it becoming too strong.

First of all, being in melee is a risk. People can easily damage you, while when you use a bow you're safe, most of the time.

Second, the actual effects of booming and greenflame blade would be way too good on a bow. Booming bolt, as you put it, can effectively stop enemies from ever getting close to you and putting you at risk, and greenflame arrow can affect two people at will from a great distance.

[PoeticDwarf]

In my opinion, it's to prevent it becoming too strong.

First of all, being in melee is a risk. People can easily damage you, while when you use a bow you're safe, most of the time.

Second, the actual effects of booming and greenflame blade would be way too good on a bow. Booming bolt, as you put it, can effectively stop enemies from ever getting close to you and putting you at risk, and greenflame arrow can affect two people at will from a great distance.

Second the first

Certain casters and AT would become stronger because they are d8HD or less. With ranged you'd have amazing archer characters. And there is a lot they should still do

[GanonBoar]

For a spell like this to be balanced at all, it would need a different rider than the BB/GFB cantrips that wasn't too OP at range, and have a restrictive range. GFB and BB don't work with reach weapons (at least not without spell sniper or distant spell) for example, so it should have a range of 30-120 feet (120 at a massive stretch). If you let it use the range of the weapon, with sharpshooter you could do this from 600 feet away.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I reckon there's a thematic aspect as well. The PHB has Lightning Arrow and EE gave us Flame Arrows, so they pretty much cover what you want.

From personal experience, when I homebrewed a 5e version of Time's Arrow and a new spell called Cupid's Arrow, it occurred to me that neither would make any sense as melee attacks. Perhaps WotC felt the same regarding Greenflame Blade and ranged attacks?

[R.Shackleford]

Because WotC thinks that damage is what unbalances the game.

It makes me laugh.

[Tanarii]

In my opinion, it's to prevent it becoming too strong.
Well, they sure failed in that regard. Both cantrips are already too strong

Edit: qualification. Both are too strong if another melee class finds a way to get access to them. They're okay for bladelocks and bladesingers with one handed melee weapons.

[Arkhios]

IIRC both Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade have a strong lore-driven reason to exist (lore that is FR specific). They weren't just randomly created for this convenience of a new rule suplementary. If they were, surely there would've been a lot more spells than only a handful of cantrips.

[JumboWheat01]

I reckon there's a thematic aspect as well. The PHB has Lightning Arrow and EE gave us Flame Arrows, so they pretty much cover what you want.

I'll admit to have forgotten all about those spells.

A pity we couldn't do the same with Melf's Acid Arrow, that would be kind of interesting.

[Foxhound438]

mechanically? because of the design intent. The spells are there to give sorcs, wizards, etc an okay melee attack. Casters don't need more ranged options, and archers don't need these or similar rider effects. They aren't really that OP either, unless you're using quicken or something like that effect, and even then... it's barely better than shocking grasp.

With Booming Blade, it's kind of hard to incentivize the target to move. With Green Flame, if only you and them are there, it damages you.

[Arkhios]

With Booming Blade, it's kind of hard to incentivize the target to move. With Green Flame, if only you and them are there, it damages you.

Huh... I must admit I hadn't realized that possibility myself. Nice catch, I'll have to be more careful with it next time!

[BruceLeeroy]

With Green Flame, if only you and them are there, it damages you.



"green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it."

Only if you're into self immolation.

[Mellack]

"green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it."

Only if you're into self immolation.

It depends on how you read that. If you read the first part, "leaps from the target to a different creature," as being required rather than optional, then if you are the only creature you must be the choice. Some read the word choice as referring to the entire flame leaping rather than just which creature.

[Foxhound438]

"green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it."

Only if you're into self immolation.

it doesn't give you the option to not chose a creature for it.

[brainface]

The scag made juusssst enough cantrips to enable "swordmage" and no more? I dont think theres any reason you couldnt have different archery cantrips, it was just outside the scope of the book. Magic stone comes to mind as the closest existing example.

[R.Shackleford]

It depends on how you read that. If you read the first part, "leaps from the target to a different creature," as being required rather than optional, then if you are the only creature you must be the choice. Some read the word choice as referring to the entire flame leaping rather than just which creature.

Plain English says "different creature of your choice".

Not. ""...different creature.". Ignoring the "of your choice" is not how plain English works.

You can English lawyer this all you want but that goes against the spirit of the game and the intent of the rules.

#shrug

[jas61292]

Plain English says "different creature of your choice".

Not. ""...different creature.". Ignoring the "of your choice" is not how plain English works.

You can English lawyer this all you want but that goes against the spirit of the game and the intent of the rules.

#shrug

While I believe that it was, via tweet or something, stated that the RAI is to let you target no one as the second target, the English doesn't support what you are saying. "Of your choice", does mean you get to choose, but the "different creature" clause establishes what you get to choose from. "No one" is not a creature, so as written, it would not be a valid choice. That said, as I mentioned, this was clarified, so I don't think it really matters. And if you don't have a second creature to target, then unless you are an Arcane Trickster or something, why are you even using this spell and not just attacking twice?

[R.Shackleford]

While I believe that it was, via tweet or something, stated that the RAI is to let you target no one as the second target, the English doesn't support what you are saying. "Of your choice", does mean you get to choose, but the "different creature" clause establishes what you get to choose from. "No one" is not a creature, so as written, it would not be a valid choice. That said, as I mentioned, this was clarified, so I don't think it really matters. And if you don't have a second creature to target, then unless you are an Arcane Trickster or something, why are you even using this spell and not just attacking twice?

The problem is that then only way it works that way is if you break up the sentence and take it as two separate sentences instead of one.

Playing semantics automatically disqualifies one from using basic (American) English.

[Felcat]

With Booming Blade, it's kind of hard to incentivize the target to move. With Green Flame, if only you and them are there, it damages you.

From what I understand, that is incorrect. You can choose to have the GFB extra target effect NOT occur if desired. So if only yourself or allies are next to whatever you are fighting.

[Foxhound438]

The problem is that then only way it works that way is if you break up the sentence and take it as two separate sentences instead of one.

Playing semantics automatically disqualifies one from using basic (American) English.

you too are engaging in semantics. an even more stretched argument, even.

[R.Shackleford]

you too are engaging in semantics. an even more stretched argument, even.

Taking the sentence as a complete sentence and not breaking it up on a whim is somehow more of a stretch?

I'm not adding anything to the rule to make an argument barely valid.

You are essentially taking The sentence "the dog hates cats." and turning it into "the dog hates. Cats!".... Making the sentence go from a dog hating cats to someone with ADD/ADHD saying that the dog just hates in general and that there are cats nearby.

[JumboWheat01]

You two do realize if you want to bicker on semantics of a language, you can do it through your own private messaging without derailing the thread any further, yes?

I wonder if similar enough cantrips would come to being if they actually made a proper Arcane Archer specialization (though an Eldritch Knight does pretty good at that job.) I mean, Arcane Archers are known to be in elvish lore in the Forgotten Realms at least, if the Neverwinter Nights series is to be believed.

[coredump]

Well, they sure failed in that regard. Both cantrips are already too strong

Edit: qualification. Both are too strong if another melee class finds a way to get access to them. They're okay for bladelocks and bladesingers with one handed melee weapons.

Aside from maybe EK, I can't think of a melted class that cares about these cantrips.

[R.Shackleford]

You two do realize if you want to bicker on semantics of a language, you can do it through your own private messaging without derailing the thread any further, yes?

I wonder if similar enough cantrips would come to being if they actually made a proper Arcane Archer specialization (though an Eldritch Knight does pretty good at that job.) I mean, Arcane Archers are known to be in elvish lore in the Forgotten Realms at least, if the Neverwinter Nights series is to be believed.

My private messaging should be turned to "off". I'll need to go check it though to make sure.

[RickAllison]

Aside from maybe EK, I can't think of a melted class that cares about these cantrips.

1) Rogues. Especially for Swashbucklers, attack with advantage for oodles of d6s worth of damage, then bonus action Hide.

2) Non-Bladesinger gishes. This cantrip doesn't play well with Extra Attack, but it's great for a class that lacks that ability.

3) Sorcerers. For nova-ing, a Sorc can dole out two of these per round, three depending on a DMs ruling of Twin with the cantrips.

4) Bladelocks.

There you go, four classes that can potentially care about this.

[R.Shackleford]

1) Rogues. Especially for Swashbucklers, attack with advantage for oodles of d6s worth of damage, then bonus action Hide.

2) Non-Bladesinger gishes. This cantrip doesn't play well with Extra Attack, but it's great for a class that lacks that ability.

3) Sorcerers. For nova-ing, a Sorc can dole out two of these per round, three depending on a DMs ruling of Twin with the cantrips.

4) Bladelocks.

There you go, four classes that can potentially care about this.

Why wouldn't Twin work with cantrips?

[RickAllison]

Why wouldn't Twin work with cantrips?

Usually, the one that is trouble is GFB. Booming Blade is generally considered okay since the secondary effect is on the same target, but I know some judge GFB to not work because of the jumping flame. With BB, it is very possible to get 3 attacks off with 3 sorcery points. Not something to be used every round, but powerful when you need it.

[MeeposFire]

1) Rogues. Especially for Swashbucklers, attack with advantage for oodles of d6s worth of damage, then bonus action Hide.

2) Non-Bladesinger gishes. This cantrip doesn't play well with Extra Attack, but it's great for a class that lacks that ability.

3) Sorcerers. For nova-ing, a Sorc can dole out two of these per round, three depending on a DMs ruling of Twin with the cantrips.

4) Bladelocks.

There you go, four classes that can potentially care about this.

1. Rogues do not get as much as you think from it unless you multiclass to get war magic. Yes you get some extra d8s which as a tactic work great with the hit and run with the swashbuckler but you also lose access to two weapon fighting which gives you two attempts at hitting in a round thus making the chance of you hitting at least once greater than the booming blade case. The difference is not as great as you think and remember you have to spend resources to get booming blade but none to get two weapon fighting at a basic level.

4. I do not know why a bladelock wants these cantrips as they actually do not work well with them specifically. The purpose of the bladelock is to give you access to extra attack and cha on a hit both of which involve using the attack action and getting the most number of attacks possible for greatest effect. These cantrips do neither. Bladelocks should not be taking these (unless you want to use them with warcaster opportunity attacks then it makes sense again but that is niche). It isn't bladelocks that really want these cantrips (though many take them or fun) it is the other warlock types like tome and chain that otherwise do not have scaling weapon options.


You forgot to mention EKs using war magic. It is the only way for warmagic to be competitive to extra attack on an EK. If you can make sure you get your second damage instance then it can even pull ahead unless you spend major resources on abilities that war magic users cannot use.

[RickAllison]

1. Rogues do not get as much as you think from it unless you multiclass to get war magic. Yes you get some extra d8s which as a tactic work great with the hit and run with the swashbuckler but you also lose access to two weapon fighting which gives you two attempts at hitting in a round thus making the chance of you hitting at least once greater than the booming blade case. The difference is not as great as you think and remember you have to spend resources to get booming blade but none to get two weapon fighting at a basic level.

4. I do not know why a bladelock wants these cantrips as they actually do not work well with them specifically. The purpose of the bladelock is to give you access to extra attack and cha on a hit both of which involve using the attack action and getting the most number of attacks possible for greatest effect. These cantrips do neither. Bladelocks should not be taking these (unless you want to use them with warcaster opportunity attacks then it makes sense again but that is niche). It isn't bladelocks that really want these cantrips (though many take them or fun) it is the other warlock types like tome and chain that otherwise do not have scaling weapon options.


You forgot to mention EKs using war magic. It is the only way for warmagic to be competitive to extra attack on an EK. If you can make sure you get your second damage instance then it can even pull ahead unless you spend major resources on abilities that war magic users cannot use.

Sorry, since it was in direct response to a comment about how EKs seemed like the only ones the cantrips were good for, it made sense not to mention them. Kind of pointless to mention a class when your argument is that there are classes beyond that one that can make use of it...

[Joe the Rat]

The scag made juusssst enough cantrips to enable "swordmage" and no more? I dont think theres any reason you couldnt have different archery cantrips, it was just outside the scope of the book. Magic stone comes to mind as the closest existing example.Pretty much this. They were Wizard* cantrips added to a Wizard specialty focused on adding melee combat to reality warping.
* And Sorcerer and Warlock, but that's secondary

Regarding the GFB secondary, I defer to Msrrs. Lee, Leifson, and Piert:
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

[Serket]

1. Rogues do not get as much as you think from it unless you multiclass to get war magic. Yes you get some extra d8s which as a tactic work great with the hit and run with the swashbuckler but you also lose access to two weapon fighting which gives you two attempts at hitting in a round thus making the chance of you hitting at least once greater than the booming blade case.

I'm playing an AT. I have a spreadsheet full of numbers on this topic. :smallsmile:

If you have to hit and run (enemy are really dangerous, maybe), BB is free damage.
If you have advantage for one or more attacks, that's reliable enough. BB becomes free damage, crit chance goes up, happy days. This should be Plan A.
If sneak attack doesn't apply, cry. But BB and run, whilst doing that. Come up with a better plan for next time.
If sneak attack could apply, but BB isn't looking like a good idea, and you have a hand crossbow plus feat, use that instead. Obviously.
If sneak attack does apply, but you don't have advantage, and you don't mind being in engagement range, and you like taking chances, and you're over 5HD... then BB anyway, because on average it's still better for most levels and hit chances.
If sneak attack does apply, but you don't have advantage, and you don't mind being in engagement range, and you don't like taking chances or the enemy has really high AC, and you don't have the hand crossbow + feat, then that's the moment to TWF.

So as things stand for me, TWFing is basically plan B (I don't have the crossbow feat). It's a point of some personal satisfaction that it doesn't come up much, though that could be due to my GMs enemy selection.