does green flame blade make thirsting blade obsolete?

[Yagyujubei]

sorry if this has been discussed but I searched GFB and nothing specifically addressing this came up. as a warlock going the melee route, If GFB is already giving you extra dmg that scales with level that would be on par or better than a second attack then it seems like thirsting blade has no point?

[Toadkiller]

Well, fire is pretty commonly resisted. But yes, between this and Booming Blade the absolute need for that invocation is reduced. Which is nice, gives the blade pact more options that remain effective. Also allows the other paths to play with melee attacks if they want.

I had a tome pact character that used GFB and shillelagh when he found himself next to the bad guys. Blasting from range was still better, his ac wasn't awesome nor his hit points, but it was something fun to do.

[Foxhound438]

thirsting blade pulls ahead decently at level 12 when lifedrinker comes back into play. Observe:

GFB at level 12: 1d8 (weapon) + 2d8 (cantrip) +1d6 (hex) + 9 (stats) = 27
2x attack at level 12: 2d8 (weapon) + 2d6 (hex) + 18 (stats) = 34

At that point GFB is only better if you want the extra damage trigger, but spreading damage around isn't always great.

[Grod_The_Giant]

thirsting blade pulls ahead decently at level 12 when lifedrinker comes back into play. Observe:

GFB at level 12: 1d8 (weapon) + 2d8 (cantrip) +1d6 (hex) + 9 (stats) = 27
2x attack at level 12: 2d8 (weapon) + 2d6 (hex) + 18 (stats) = 34

At that point GFB is only better if you want the extra damage trigger, but spreading damage around isn't always great.
Not to mention better synergy with things like TWF, Polearm Master/Crossbow Expert, and GWM/Sharpshooter, especially once Lifedrinker comes into play. On the other hand, a Tomelock can nab Shillelagh and make attacks using Cha, and the melee attack cantrips keep up decently well with an unmodified Extra Attack.

[MeeposFire]

Also using two cantrips to make decent an attack style in melee may not be the greatest investment.

[Toadkiller]

Meh, it depends on what you are trying to do. Something I enjoy in 5e is that spell casters can actually do things in melee and not just not accomplish anything. It isn't optimal, but it's something. My warlock (mentioned above) was able to play at being a dual threat. Not having to flee from fighting in melee is fun, in the right party it can be a big help.

[CaptainSarathai]

thirsting blade pulls ahead decently at level 12 when lifedrinker comes back into play. Observe:

GFB at level 12: 1d8 (weapon) + 2d8 (cantrip) +1d6 (hex) + 9 (stats) = 27
2x attack at level 12: 2d8 (weapon) + 2d6 (hex) + 18 (stats) = 34

At that point GFB is only better if you want the extra damage trigger, but spreading damage around isn't always great.

You have to remember that you're getting secondary damage from the cantrip though. Single-target damage isn't as good, but you're slamming another Cha+2d8 into someone else in the fight.
You can also go Undying Light Patron, and get Cha to that damage right out of the gates. So yes, if the campaign is going to 12+ you're okay as a BladeLock, but the rest of the time you are further ahead with GFB.

If worried about Resistance, take Booming Blade instead. I've found that for a melee-lock, pairing this with the Mobile feat (after Warcaster) can be evil. You hit an enemy, and then move away without provoking AoOs. If they don't have a ranged option, they are forced to take the extra damage from moving, or do nothing on their turn. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It also makes Lock/Sorc MCs even better. You don't need an extra attack now, and with Quicken Spell you can double-tap GFB or you can Twin+Quicken BB. Draconic also gets +Cha to a spell-damage type, choosing Fire or Lighting.

A ULTomelock3/DSorc6+ with Shillelagh and concentrating on Haste, could potentially dish out, at 11th level:
7d8+7xCha to one target, and then 4d8+2xCha into a secondary target.

[djreynolds]

sorry if this has been discussed but I searched GFB and nothing specifically addressing this came up. as a warlock going the melee route, If GFB is already giving you extra dmg that scales with level that would be on par or better than a second attack then it seems like thirsting blade has no point?

You know I never thought of it this way, perhaps due to the SCAG coming out about this time last year.

I guess it depends on how many levels you are taking this class, as bladesinger falls into this as well, but the 12 Lifedrinker and bladesinger's 14th level ability, means you may want that second attack.

But you exchange invocations? So until you obtain life drinker, leave thirsting blade alone.

It is an interesting thread

[Yagyujubei]

yeah im playing this character right now and were starting at level 5, so i COULD take thirsting blade right out of the gates, and I am going a dual wield bladelock, but it seems like for now I would be better off just doing GFB as my action and then making my bonus attack with offhand.

[RSP]

Yag,
Though GFB involves an attack, it actually uses the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack Action, so you wouldn't be able to off-hand bonus attack when using GFB.

[Yagyujubei]

Yag,
Though GFB involves an attack, it actually uses the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack Action, so you wouldn't be able to off-hand bonus attack when using GFB.

wait really? you cant bonus action melee atk if you cast a spell as your main action?

holy ****...you really need to take an atk action to trigger it I never knew that or played that way.

[RSP]

You can only make an off-hand attack as a bonus action if you use the Attack Action.

[Toadkiller]

I would allow it in this case, as would many I think.

[Tanarii]

wait really? you cant bonus action melee atk if you cast a spell as your main action?

holy ****...you really need to take an atk action to trigger it I never knew that or played that way.Yep. It's pretty strict. For example, a Ranger can't use bonus action to attack if they Whirlwind attack, or if they use their Attack Action to let their Animal Companion attack.

In the case of Spellcasting, it's probably a good thing. Otherwise every single spellcaster would make an off-hand dagger throw every spell cast.

Edit: on the topic of the SCAG cantrips, yes they're horribly overpowered. No sane DM should allow them.

[RSP]

Also, per RAW you would need the Warcaster feat to cast a spell with M components and wouldn't be able to cast S component spells, though GFB and Booming Blade are exceptions to that, I believe.

[Arial Black]

Also, per RAW you would need the Warcaster feat to cast a spell with M components and wouldn't be able to cast S component spells, though GFB and Booming Blade are exceptions to that, I believe.

Not so much 'exceptions', but designed with the VSM rules in mind.

Both G-FB and BB have verbal and material components, but no somatic component. The material component (not consumed in the casting!) is the weapon with which you make the attack.

Therefore, you don't need a free hand for the somatic component (there isn't one!) and the material component (weapon) is already in your hand.

[Davemeddlehed]

Edit: on the topic of the SCAG cantrips, yes they're horribly overpowered. No sane DM should allow them.

Can you elaborate on this?

I've not heard anything to the effect that they are overpowered. They seem fairly balanced to be honest. With GFB you're not really getting any more damage than any other damaging cantrip with a d8. The only thing GFB and BB have that the other ones don't is that you get to add your weapon's normal damage to it. I think it helps bridge the gap between gish and pure melee character, and makes spellcasters not so useless when they become forced to actually hit something.

[BW022]

Not even close. People are overlooking several issues with green flame blade.

* Hex applies against each hit -- not green flame.
* Damage against a single target is better than half damage to two targets. The sooner you kill one foe, the sooner he stops attacking or acting.
* Multiple attacks is more likely to ensure at least one hit. Disrupting concentration spells for example.
* Multiple attacks allows you to more evenly spread out damage.
* Green flame is useless against a single targets.
* Green flame is useless against multiple targets not within 5'. This is increasingly common at higher levels (size and reach) or after initial round when intelligent foes stop standing next to each other.
* Green flame doesn't permit you to attack, move and attack another target.
* Lots of creatures are immune or have resistance to fire.
* Green flame doesn't add magical weapon damage to hits.
* Green flame is useless if you are attacking an object -- say a rope, door, wagon, etc. Green flame must leap to a creature.
* Green flame can't deal non-lethal damage.
* Green flame can't be used if silenced.
* Green flame can't be used stealthily. You can't take out a guard quietly -- due to its verbal component. Most DMs would also rule that the flame would be visible in darkness.
* Green flame doesn't permit using a two-handed weapon, shield, or holding anything (other than your focus) due to its material component (baring war caster feat).
* Green flame can't critical hit.
* Green flame does less damage than many types of weapons. Strength-based builds can easily use a two-handed sword, glaive, or even a longsword (in two hands).
* Pact weapons can be ranged (if you find a magical ranged weapon). You can be a bladelock using a pact longbow+1. You still get the multiple attacks with thirsting blade. You can't use green flame on ranged weapons.
* Green flame does not permit other magical (or other) weapon effects -- frost swords, poisoned blades, etc.

[RickAllison]

Can you elaborate on this?

I've not heard anything to the effect that they are overpowered. They seem fairly balanced to be honest. With GFB you're not really getting any more damage than any other damaging cantrip with a d8. The only thing GFB and BB have that the other ones don't is that you get to add your weapon's normal damage to it. I think it helps bridge the gap between gish and pure melee character, and makes spellcasters not so useless when they become forced to actually hit something.

It's really not a problem of being overpowered as Tanarii claims, but they do have a problem with devaluing certain builds. Bladesinger (ironically released in SCAG as well), Bladelocks, and Valor Bards took some hits in that the ability to be a front-line combatant with magic through class features becomes less useful when your other subclasses can circumvent the process and be as good or better. Bladesingers seem like a unique warmage, one who is a caster first but can then mix it up in melee just fine; other wizards can start with a level of Cleric or Fighter (or otherwise obtain medium/heavy armor proficiency) and the melee cantrips and display comparable melee capabilities while also getting the subclasses bonuses. This thread is about how GFB/BB creates disquieting comparisons with Bladelock invocations. Valor Bards are still a great chassis, but it is notable that the Lore Bard can grab the cantrips through some method and be comparable to the Valor while reaping the benefits of being a Lore.

It isn't that they are overpowered, the SCAG cantrips just render certain archetypes redundant or otherwise undesirable by making other archetypes able to achieve comparable results with far fewer sacrifices.

[Davemeddlehed]

Not even close. People are overlooking several issues with green flame blade.

* Hex applies against each hit -- not green flame.
* Damage against a single target is better than half damage to two targets. The sooner you kill one foe, the sooner he stops attacking or acting.
* Multiple attacks is more likely to ensure at least one hit. Disrupting concentration spells for example.
* Multiple attacks allows you to more evenly spread out damage.
* Green flame is useless against a single targets.
* Green flame is useless against multiple targets not within 5'. This is increasingly common at higher levels (size and reach) or after initial round when intelligent foes stop standing next to each other.
* Green flame doesn't permit you to attack, move and attack another target.
* Lots of creatures are immune or have resistance to fire.
* Green flame doesn't add magical weapon damage to hits.
* Green flame is useless if you are attacking an object -- say a rope, door, wagon, etc. Green flame must leap to a creature.
* Green flame can't deal non-lethal damage.
* Green flame can't be used if silenced.
* Green flame can't be used stealthily. You can't take out a guard quietly -- due to its verbal component. Most DMs would also rule that the flame would be visible in darkness.
* Green flame doesn't permit using a two-handed weapon, shield, or holding anything (other than your focus) due to its material component (baring war caster feat).
* Green flame can't critical hit.
* Green flame does less damage than many types of weapons. Strength-based builds can easily use a two-handed sword, glaive, or even a longsword (in two hands).
* Pact weapons can be ranged (if you find a magical ranged weapon). You can be a bladelock using a pact longbow+1. You still get the multiple attacks with thirsting blade. You can't use green flame on ranged weapons.
* Green flame does not permit other magical (or other) weapon effects -- frost swords, poisoned blades, etc.

A few things:

1) GFB is not useless against a single target after level 5. You effectively do the damage of a second attack(1d8 on top of your normal weapon damage +modifier).

2) Where in the language does it not allow for magical weapon damage? It specifies that you apply the "normal effects" of the attack(which, if you're using a magic weapon, would mean you get to add that +1/2/3 damage), thus it is a normal effect for a magic weapon to deal that extra damage.

3) I could be wrong, but I don't think 5e has a "non-lethal damage" mechanic(at least I've never seen it in any of the material for 5e).

4) GFB can be used by a two handed weapon, or while wielding a shield, even without war caster, since the only components needed are a verbal, and material(the weapon itself is the material required).

[Davemeddlehed]

It's really not a problem of being overpowered as Tanarii claims, but they do have a problem with devaluing certain builds. Bladesinger (ironically released in SCAG as well), Bladelocks, and Valor Bards took some hits in that the ability to be a front-line combatant with magic through class features becomes less useful when your other subclasses can circumvent the process and be as good or better. Bladesingers seem like a unique warmage, one who is a caster first but can then mix it up in melee just fine; other wizards can start with a level of Cleric or Fighter (or otherwise obtain medium/heavy armor proficiency) and the melee cantrips and display comparable melee capabilities while also getting the subclasses bonuses. This thread is about how GFB/BB creates disquieting comparisons with Bladelock invocations. Valor Bards are still a great chassis, but it is notable that the Lore Bard can grab the cantrips through some method and be comparable to the Valor while reaping the benefits of being a Lore.

It isn't that they are overpowered, the SCAG cantrips just render certain archetypes redundant or otherwise undesirable by making other archetypes able to achieve comparable results with far fewer sacrifices.


I can see that point of view, though I feel that in the end it isn't a huge blow to many of those classes/subclasses simply because it really doesn't go both ways. Several classes have to give up quite a bit to get a shot at having these cantrips. Either the build has to allow for it(thus giving up other archetype features), or spend an ASI to pick it up through magic initiate, or risk being a level behind by multiclassing into either Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock.

Not to mention they really only serve to help bridge the gap in combat usefulness between, say, fighters/barbarians, and the caster classes who may end up getting cornered at some point and will be forced to hack and slash their way out.

[RSP]

After reducing a creature to 0 HP with a melee attack, the attacker can choose to knockout the creature rather than kill it. I believe this rule is what is being referred to however, the rule is only restricted by "melee attack" (not melee weapon attack), and as such GFB would still apply as it involves a melee attack, so far as I can see.

[Davemeddlehed]

After reducing a creature to 0 HP with a melee attack, the attacker can choose to knockout the creature rather than kill it. I believe this rule is what is being referred to however, the rule is only restricted by "melee attack" (not melee weapon attack), and as such GFB would still apply as it involves a melee attack, so far as I can see.

What are the chances that an extra d8 or 3 is going to kill it outright after, say, level 3 anyway? I don't think it's going to come up much by the time you start stacking d8's on top of your normal weapon damage, unless you crit when they were already low on health, but even then, it seems like a tall order to deal enough damage to outright kill anything of 3rd level or higher without exceptionally high damage rolls.

[Zaydos]

Ok let's look at some situations.

We'll look at 5th level to begin with. For simplicity we'll compare Dex 18, Cha 16 for Thirsting Blade and Greenflame Blade, and Dex 16, Cha 16, and Mobile feat for Booming Blade. We will be using a rapier and assuming Hex is up.

18 AC. You have +7 to hit (+6 if booming blade). If you hit you deal 1d8+1d6+4 damage but you get a 2nd attack (no cantrip), 2d8+1d6+4 damage (gfb), or 2d8+1d6+3 damage (booming blade). DPR with Thirsting Blade: 12. DPR with GFB is 8.25. DPR with Booming Blade is 6.975 if you can't move away, or 11.025... This surprises me (I was expecting Booming Blade to win). If you put a 2nd enemy on the field for GFB it becomes 8.25 + 3.75. In short the same as Thirsting Blade total. Even if the spell's bonus damage that goes with the initial attack is increased on a crit (reading it I'd ask my DM, I'd very much believe the 2nd damage probably shouldn't be) GFB falls behind.

Well let's look at 15 AC. It's more likely than 18 AC. The damage for no cantrip and GFB increases by 30% (you had 50% to hit, now you have 65%). Booming Blade increases by 33%. So we have 15.6 (thirsting blade), 10.725 (gfb 1 target), 14.7 (Booming Blade). The fact that Hex triggers on 'attack' not damage from spell rather helps Thirsting Blade stay ahead.

If we throw in a +1 weapon, this increases the DPR of Thirsting Blade to 14.3 against AC 18, GFB to 9.625 against 1 target (+4.125 with a 2nd target), and Booming Blade becomes 12.75.

In short assuming your Dex equals or bests your Cha Thirsting Blade beats out GFB at 5th level until 10th, and then Thirsting Blade pulls it ahead again at 12th.

Now let's pretend Hex isn't a thing, maybe you lost your Concentration.

Thirsting Blade loses 3.5 against AC 18, GFB loses 1.75 so pulls ahead (by 1.75) if there are 2 targets stays behind by 1.75 otherwise, and Booming Blade loses 1.575 so pulls ahead of basic attack then.

So on a non-warlock Booming Blade + Mobile beats out +2 Dex and Extra Attack for damage. However on a warlock Hex + 2 Attacks beats the SCAG cantrips at least till 17th level (haven't looked at 17th level).

The cantrips are really best on Rogues with the Magic Initiate feat, specifically Swashbuckler archetype for pseudo-mobile. You get +3d8 damage over a normal sneak attack unless they're in melee with someone else. Everywhere else they're not really as good as an extra attack until level 11+, and lose out with magic items on the field.

[Tanarii]

Can you elaborate on this? They're always more powerful than Extra Attack except in certain other niche and already overpowered cases (ie GWM), and they're always more powerful than any other cantrip except Eldritch Blast backup up by Agonizing Blast. They power up many builds that intentionally didn't have a way to get powerful melee attacks perviously.

They're poorly thought out power creep, pure and simple. There's a reason you see them on builds all the time. And that reason is they're overpowered.

[Vogonjeltz]

You know I never thought of it this way, perhaps due to the SCAG coming out about this time last year.

I guess it depends on how many levels you are taking this class, as bladesinger falls into this as well, but the 12 Lifedrinker and bladesinger's 14th level ability, means you may want that second attack.

But you exchange invocations? So until you obtain life drinker, leave thirsting blade alone.

It is an interesting thread

GFB is better damage vs multiple targets, but inferior vs single target. So it works well for its niche, but doesn't outperform across the board.

[Davemeddlehed]

They're always more powerful than Extra Attack except in certain other niche and already overpowered cases (ie GWM), and they're always more powerful than any other cantrip except Eldritch Blast backup up by Agonizing Blast. They power up many builds that intentionally didn't have a way to get powerful melee attacks perviously.

They're poorly thought out power creep, pure and simple. There's a reason you see them on builds all the time. And that reason is they're overpowered.

They aren't always more powerful. GFB only does an extra 1d8 at level 5, 2d8 at 11, and 3d8 at 17. You really think 3d8 at level 17 in addition to the weapon's damage is overpowered? The secondary damage is one of the top 3 most resisted damage type in the game. I don't know of many situations at those levels where an average of 15 damage(and no modifier on GFB) is going to push you into gamebreaking power. Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast does more average damage in half the levels!

Booming Blade only does it's secondary damage if the target decides to move, which is wholly contingent on whether or not the creature in question has a ranged attack or magic attack of some kind. Seems fairly situational, especially since it opens the person using it to opportunity attacks when they back off(assuming they haven't spent an ASI on the mobile feat).

Just because you see it on builds all the time doesn't make it overpowered. That simply means it's effective(as is Eldritch Blast), but ultimately it's just a way for casters to not be ranged spell spammers.

[BW022]

A few things:
1) GFB is not useless against a single target after level 5. You effectively do the damage of a second attack(1d8 on top of your normal weapon damage +modifier).


Fair enough. Unless meaning that you are doing less damage. Assuming a long sword and a 16 strength... two attacks would do 2d8+6. One attack with green flame would do 1d8+3+1d8 (fire). That is still less. That is before any factoring in critical hits, magical weapons, hex, etc.



2) Where in the language does it not allow for magical weapon damage? It specifies that you apply the "normal effects" of the attack(which, if you're using a magic weapon, would mean you get to add that +1/2/3 damage), thus it is a normal effect for a magic weapon to deal that extra damage.


Yes, but you only get those effects once. If you have a +1 frost long sword, you do 1d8 sword +1d4 (frost) + 4 (magic + strength). If you attack twice, you do 2d8+2d4+8, vs. 2d8+1d4+4 for green flame.



3) I could be wrong, but I don't think 5e has a "non-lethal damage" mechanic(at least I've never seen it in any of the material for 5e).


PHB pg. 198 it says "When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant damage is dealt" You can't make that choice to the secondary target you are dealing fire damage to. They weren't hit by a melee weapon.



4) GFB can be used by a two handed weapon, or while wielding a shield, even without war caster, since the only components needed are a verbal, and material(the weapon itself is the material required).

Thanks. Good correction. I didn't see the "(weapon)" as the material component.

[Davemeddlehed]

Fair enough. Unless meaning that you are doing less damage. Assuming a long sword and a 16 strength... two attacks would do 2d8+6. One attack with green flame would do 1d8+3+1d8 (fire). That is still less. That is before any factoring in critical hits, magical weapons, hex, etc.

True enough, but the only thing lacking there is the modifier on the secondary damage, which is a pretty fair trade for a class that might not get a second attack(like a Rogue, or non blade pact Warlock), and it has the capability of spreading some damage around to a second target. It may not be the most economical way of attacking in melee range, but it beats just sitting way behind everyone else and throwing firebolt, or ray of frost every turn.



Yes, but you only get those effects once. If you have a +1 frost long sword, you do 1d8 sword +1d4 (frost) + 4 (magic + strength). If you attack twice, you do 2d8+2d4+8, vs. 2d8+1d4+4 for green flame.

I think it's worth looking at GFB in a vacuum as it pertains to classes that don't eventually get an extra attack. Nobody is going to be looking to take this cantrip for a class that gets more than one attack per turn(even two weapon fighting builds probably won't take this).


PHB pg. 198 it says "When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant damage is dealt" You can't make that choice to the secondary target you are dealing fire damage to. They weren't hit by a melee weapon.

SCAG Pg. 143 says "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. On a hit, the target suffers the attack’s normal effects," They were hit by a weapon, and even by a melee attack. Remember that in order to outright kill a creature you have to match it's maximum hp AFTER bringing it to 0 points. That extra d8 doesn't even come into play until level 5


Thanks. Good correction. I didn't see the "(weapon)" as the material component.

No problem.

[Tanarii]

They aren't always more powerful. GFB only does an extra 1d8 at level 5, 2d8 at 11, and 3d8 at 17. You really think 3d8 at level 17 in addition to the weapon's damage is overpowered?You're wrong. It does an extra 2d8 at level 5, 4d8 at level 11, and 6d8 at level 17. It's far more powerful than any other cantrip. Edit: Except Booming Blade, which scales at the same overpowered rate.

[RickAllison]

You're wrong. It does an extra 2d8 at level 5, 4d8 at level 11, and 6d8 at level 17. It's far more powerful than any other cantrip. Edit: Except Booming Blade, which scales at the same overpowered rate.

Probably because they require actually getting into the enemy's face rather than far away. Acid Splash is similar and grows at 2d6 per level. BB loses the restriction on divvying it between two people, but gains the detriment that the enemy can choose not to activate it.

It is more powerful than normal cantrips, purely because they require putting he used in more danger. The only one that gets screwed over is Shocking Grasp.

[Davemeddlehed]

You're wrong. It does an extra 2d8 at level 5, 4d8 at level 11, and 6d8 at level 17. It's far more powerful than any other cantrip. Edit: Except Booming Blade, which scales at the same overpowered rate.



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. On a hit, the target suffers the attack’s normal effects, and green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting modifier.

This spell’s damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level and 17th level.

You're wrong. Read it again. It's only doing 1d8 extra to the creature you attacked in the first place(at level 5), and only damages a second creature if that creature happens to be standing right next to your initial target.

At level 5 Eldritch Blast can be doing 2d10+cha to one creature, or split it among two creatures, and you don't have to be in melee range to do it.

[Tanarii]

You're wrong. Read it again. It's only doing 1d8 extra to the creature you attacked in the first place(at level 5), and only damages a second creature if that creature happens to be standing right next to your initial target./facepalm

That's an extra 2d8 per level!

Edit: And considering it's buffing up a basic attack, that's an incredible amount.

Edit2: If you're having to compare to Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast to justify a cantrip that doesn't require an already overpowered Invocation, and it's still weaker, you're not doing your case they aren't overpowered any good.

[Davemeddlehed]

/facepalm

That's an extra 2d8 per level!

Edit: And considering it's buffing up a basic attack, that's an incredible amount.

Only half of that damage is being done to the target you hit to begin with, though. That's hardly overpowered. It's on par with an extra weapon attack, except it isn't even that powerful(a second weapon attack would get another dose of STR/DEX mod).

Let's compare using a Rapier with 18 Dex and 16 Cha that gets an extra attack, to a Rapier with no extra attack using GFB. Both are level 5.

Extra attack: 1d8+4+1d8+4 = an average of 18 damage in a round
GFB: 1d8+4+1d8, second target takes 1d8+3 = average of 14, and 8 to a second target, if possible.

So what you've done is spread the damage around, however you've also done less damage to the primary target as you would have using two attacks, and that's just with a rapier. Imagine using a maul, great sword, great axe, two handing a hammer, etc etc etc. The damage is simply not better using GFB to the target you hit. Overall? Yes, it does more. But the trade off is you're now standing right next to two enemies as primarily a caster class(most likely, since, if you had two attacks you'd likely be using them instead of a cantrip).

[BW022]

SCAG Pg. 143 says "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. On a hit, the target suffers the attack’s normal effects," They were hit by a weapon, and even by a melee attack.


Assume you have two villagers who are charmed. You'd rather not kill them.

With multiple attacks, you just hit each of them with a melee weapon and you can choose to make them unconscious. With green flame... you would hit one village and then the flame would jump and damage the second. You can certainly choose to make the villager you hit unconscious. However, the second you aren't hitting with a melee weapon... you are damaging with a spell. You can't choose to take the second villager unconscious.




Remember that in order to outright kill a creature you have to match it's maximum hp AFTER bringing it to 0 points. That extra d8 doesn't even come into play until level 5


Incorrect. previous section in the PHP, "Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws. Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters"

Few DMs are going to go through death saves for goblins, villagers, animals, etc.

Hence... ranged weapons, damaging spells, etc. cannot be used to knock people unconscious.

[RickAllison]

Assume you have two villagers who are charmed. You'd rather not kill them.

With multiple attacks, you just hit each of them with a melee weapon and you can choose to make them unconscious. With green flame... you would hit one village and then the flame would jump and damage the second. You can certainly choose to make the villager you hit unconscious. However, the second you aren't hitting with a melee weapon... you are damaging with a spell. You can't choose to take the second villager unconscious.




Incorrect. previous section in the PHP, "Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws. Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters"

Few DMs are going to go through death saves for goblins, villagers, animals, etc.

Hence... ranged weapons, damaging spells, etc. cannot be used to knock people unconscious.

I would like to point out that the advice on giving NPCs death saving throws is more for convenience than verisimilitude. In the wilderness, war zones, or dungeons (aka the standard battle areas of adventurers), someone who is unconscious for hours at a time is probably dead if they didn't already fail their saves, and many more are too stupid, afraid of death, or unimportant to seek vengeance. Thus for the majority of enemies, it has no bearing whether they live or die. It is not that they don't have death saves, but that the result has no impact on the story.

[Tanarii]

Only half of that damage is being done to the target you hit to begin with, though. That's hardly overpowered. It's on par with an extra weapon attack, except it isn't even that powerful(a second weapon attack would get another dose of STR/DEX mod).Right. It's on par with an Extra weapon attack ... on classes that don't actually get an extra weapon attack. It's better than an equivalent level cantrip. Even if you account for spreading damage around, which is about 2/3 of single target damage.

There is no way to cut the cantrips so they're not overpowered in an apples to apples comparison. You have to reach for oranges (Extra Attack) or Pears (Agonizing Blast) to start getting there.

[Ashrym]

I think thirsting blade is still worth taking in addition to greenflame blade as a back up for those times it would be better.

[Zaydos]

As a note to the OP: With Hex GFB is flat worse than Thirsting Blade.

GFB at 5th level deals 1d8+Dex+1d8+1d6 (hex) to 1 target, and 1d8+Cha to another.

Thirsting Blade deals 1d8+1d6+Dex to one target and then if they die you bonus action hex the second and deal it to them, or you hit the first target for that again.

Totals assuming 18 Dex and Cha: 16.5 + 7.5 (GFB) or 24 (Thirsting Blade). You may notice this is the same total but one is reliable, and the other relies on the DM having things cluster together which is in general bad strategy in a world with Burning Hands and Fireballs unless they gain some benefit due to it. Even if they decide creatures aren't strategic enough to try and avoid Burning Hands and Fireballs, use GFB once and they probably should shift about to be further apart.

On GFB being flat-out broken.

Wizards can get extra attack (Bladesinger)

Sorcerers can too (Favored Soul)

Warlocks can or this thread wouldn't exist.

On all of these Extra Attack is typically better than GFB. Now of course they eat a resource. But let's look at GFB versus Acid Spray and Firebolt on a character liable to not already be going for extra attack. Casting Stat will be 18 becoming 20 at 8th because it's priority. Dex will be 16 because it's secondary. At 5th level you have a +6 to hit, for 1d4+3+1d8 damage (10 damage), possibly +4+1d8 (8.5) to a second target. Firebolt is 11 damage with +7 to hit on 1 target at a range so most of the time better than GFB. Acid Splash is 60 ft range and 7 damage to two creatures with the same targeting limitation as GFB, but DC 15 Dex save. You need a 9 to hit on average, and they'll need a 14 on average to save. So 11.1 average damage with GFB and 9.1 with Acid Splash. GFB edges out but requires you to be in melee with 2+ creatures so I'd go for Acid Splash.

At 11th level the damage increases all around. You could pick up an ASI to make your GFB better, or pick up Warcaster or Resilient. These feats are more likely than the ASI. So you have a +7 to hit for 1d4+3+2d8 damage (14.5 damage) and possibly +5+2d8 (14) to a second. Firebolt is 16.5 damage with a +9 to hit on 1 target at a range so most of the time still better than GFB, if there's enough enemies clustered to reliably use GFB you probably want to be lobbing a fireball at this point. What about Acid Splash it's 10.5 to 2, but where AC has crept up a bit to average closer to 16-17, Dex saves are still pretty bad. So now they need a 16 to save and you still need a 9 or maybe even a 10 to hit. 15.75 from Acid Splash at a range vs 17.1 in melee. Acid Splash still comes off as the better cantrip to pick up because it's useful more often at less risk.

What about 17th level? You might have +4 Dex now, but if you don't you're looking at +9 to hit for 19 damage and 18.5 to a second, versus +11 to hit for 22, and Acid Splash is DC 19 and deals 14 to 2 now. Average AC has crept to above 18, average Dex remains +1 across the board except for CR 18 (there's only 1 CR 18 creature which has significantly higher Dex than normal), now things are more likely to be proficient in it, but that's still far from all. You're looking at 55% chance of hitting, versus 85%. Or 20.625 with GFB vs 23.8 with Acid Splash.

Booming Blade and Mobile is a greater investment, which means you aren't getting 20/20 even if you were otherwise. Then it requires them not to have ranged options, and not to just engage your allies which lack mobile instead. It's good, but it is not substantially better than Firebolt due to it being unreliably and requiring you to wade into melee.

No, it's not broken compared to other wizard/sorcerer cantrips on a wizard/sorcerer, or a warlock, or a bard. It may be broken on a rogue.

[RickAllison]

When comparing it to regular cantrips, we should also consider the problem of MADness. With Firebolt and Acid Splash, the user only needs their casting stat. If they want to be good with GFB, they have to focus on the second stat. It is a no-brainer for someone who was already planning for a melee build or for a Tomelock with Shillelagh, but ordinary casters have to put ASIs into Dex or Strength because otherwise he is losing his attack bonus.

So that is why GFB and BB are more powerful than other cantrips. They need to both get into the thick of battle as well as focus on a separate stat (keeping in mind that he wants it anyway for AC, but it goes from being on the level of Con or Wis to being as important as Int for a wizard).

[CaptainSarathai]

sorry if this has been discussed but I searched GFB and nothing specifically addressing this came up. as a warlock going the melee route, If GFB is already giving you extra dmg that scales with level that would be on par or better than a second attack then it seems like thirsting blade has no point?




On GFB being flat-out broken.

Wizards can get extra attack (Bladesinger)

Sorcerers can too (Favored Soul)

Warlocks can or this thread wouldn't exist.

I think that perhaps the OP was talking g about Warlocks, in a vacuum. In this case, GFB/BB might be "close enough" in damage, go warrant taking Chain or Tome over Blade. The big advantage with Blade is that it's the only way to get Extra Attack, and if your campaign/class hits 12, you get Life Drinker. With BB/GFB those sorts of type-restricted Extra Attacks are less necessary. Where initially the difference between Extra Attack and a single attack was so much that making a single stab just wasn't worth it. With BB/GFB in play, that difference in damage is made as small as the gap between a fully optimized heavy weapon, and perhaps a rapier attack. Significant, but not necessarily a deal-breaker.

So now you have the choice of taking getting just an extra attack as your primary archetype feature, or getting a different/better feature with a comparatively smaller reduction in total melee damage.

Not to mention adding a Sorcerer's Twin/Quicken metamagic to those cantrips, leaving even some multiattack abilities in the dust.

[Essar]

Eldritch Blast makes TB obsolete...

[Ashrym]

Eldritch Blast makes TB obsolete...

Not as long as feats and/or poison is available. Eldritch blast is playing catch up most of the game.

[Waazraath]

Edit: on the topic of the SCAG cantrips, yes they're horribly overpowered. No sane DM should allow them.

I think the biggest, maybe only, problem is when combining them with a class that can be melee focused, and only gets one attack. I'm looking specificly at the cleric and the rogue. For an Arcane Trickster, the investment is hardly anything (ok, one of the cantrips know that the class gets anyway), and it's a (at most) 3d8 maybe 7d8 bonus (or 6d8 + int) to damage. That's huge. Same for cleric, it only costs a feat (with other benefits - magic initiate for an advantage giving familiar is great as well) or a (not too bad) racial choice.

For classes that get two attacks, I think on most levels the extra attack is stronger than the extra damage of a SCAG-cantrip, especially when factoring in magic weapons, buffs, 'overkill damage', etc.

[RickAllison]

I think the biggest, maybe only, problem is when combining them with a class that can be melee focused, and only gets one attack. I'm looking specificly at the cleric and the rogue. For an Arcane Trickster, the investment is hardly anything (ok, one of the cantrips know that the class gets anyway), and it's a (at most) 3d8 maybe 7d8 bonus (or 6d8 + int) to damage. That's huge. Same for cleric, it only costs a feat (with other benefits - magic initiate for an advantage giving familiar is great as well) or a (not too bad) racial choice.

For classes that get two attacks, I think on most levels the extra attack is stronger than the extra damage of a SCAG-cantrip, especially when factoring in magic weapons, buffs, 'overkill damage', etc.

Much of the time, those with the cantrips and Extra Attack should be using Extra Attack most of the time, but they have the option using the cantrips when the secondary effect is more sure to trigger or be a hindrance. The Bladesinger needs someone to stand still? Booming Blade. Have two people lined up next to each other who also aren't resistant to fire damage? GFB.