Booming Blade, why not taking it?

[etrpgb]

A good rule of thumb to see if something is very powerful is asking "why should anyone want to skip it?"

So, my question is, is there any reason why a Rogue (and other classes without Extra Attack) should not take Booming Blade via Magic Initiate? Doubly so after the DEX is 20?
Besides, Magic Initiate can give other useful tricks depending of the list chosen. About Booming Blade, any list will do as the casting stat does not count.

I am not saying it breaks the game and it should be banned, I am just saying it is definitely strong.

[Dalebert]

I would ban it in a homebrew. They're just too clearly better than other options for the reasons given. In AL it's limited somewhat by the PHB+1 limit and SCAG is a relatively scant book as far as other options compared to the other books. If you want a race from Volo's or a class from Xanathar's or spells from Xanathar's, you can't also have BB or GFB. They pointedly left them out of Xanathar's which otherwise seemed to consolidate all the other added spells like from Princes of the Apocolypse.

I'm not a big fan of that way of restricting it though. I don't feel it really restricts the mechanical benefit disparity. It more makes you choose between being the most powerful (DMS is king in 5e from a mechanical standpoint) or being more fun and flavorful. It's not practical to ban it now of course. They needed to make that decision when SCAG came out and they didn't. Really it seems like a mistake they're aware of but they never want to admit so they rely on PHB+1 to make it less appealing over time.

It's also a great combo in an EK 7 or 8 / Paladin X build--BB or GFB followed by a bonus action attack, or for Valor Bards.

[ImproperJustice]

It is borderline conventional wisdom in these parts that booming blade is great for Rogues, so you are very on point with this.

Reasons for not taking: Doesen’t fit players concept. Some Rogues feel that leaving a trail of sonic explosions messes with their motif, or they have other feats or AS they want to develop.

Case in point: we have a High Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom Rogue who never picks locks or sneaks, but is a superb negotiator.

[CTurbo]

Yes it is very strong and especially for classes with just one attack. The Rogue is probably the best example considering that it works just as well since weapon type doesn't matter.

Should every Rogue take it? Yes probably sooner or later, but remember that it is LOUD so it cannot be used at times when stealth is a factor.

[Kadesh]

You don't want to play a Magical Character, you don't want to give the game away by making a massive boom, you want to attack from range where you are harder to spot and get more benefit by taking Alert, Sharpshooter, or a +2 Dex ASI so you can stay hidden, be more accurate, and still do more damage that isn't reliant on making a big noise, and a creature simply staying where they are or not attacking you with a ranged weapon.

Booming Blade is good. But the opportunity cost can justify not taking it often.

Also, the short answer is 'if you are in melee, you are roguing wrong'.

[Camman1984]

it is a bit too powerful to be honest, maybe an argument for it being fixed at 2d8 and made level 1 could be made. it does prevent things like two weapon fighting so the rogue doesn't have a back up attack if she misses the first attack. and an extra 2.5 average damage per 5 levels (assuming 50% hit rate) isn't going to change the world, so other feats or ASI options may be required, rogues are just lucky to potentially be very SAD so don't mind losing an ASI

[Camman1984]

Also, the short answer is 'if you are in melee, you are roguing wrong'.

Not sure Illyria Moonshae, envoy of Themberchaud would agree, she loves to dart in, throw out a big attack then dart back out, she has a shard tongue but her sword is longer :)

[Laserlight]

A lot of people seem to assume BB will always get you the "when they move" damage, but that's nonsense. Especially if you're getting your SA from attacking a target adjacent to your ally; you may Disengage away but the BB'd for doesn't need to move to attack your ally.

And if you're going to spend a feat on getting BB, that's a feat you didn't spend on stat increases, sharpshooter, whatever.

BB is nice but it's not overwhelming.

[Blood of Gaea]

A lot of people seem to assume BB will always get you the "when they move" damage, but that's nonsense. Especially if you're getting your SA from attacking a target adjacent to your ally; you may Disengage away but the BB'd for doesn't need to move to attack your ally.

And if you're going to spend a feat on getting BB, that's a feat you didn't spend on stat increases, sharpshooter, whatever.

BB is nice but it's not overwhelming.
Very few people make the assumption that BB will have it's secondary go off, it's generally just considered an added form of control, they need to eat damage if they want to move.

[leogobsin]

A lot of people seem to assume BB will always get you the "when they move" damage, but that's nonsense. Especially if you're getting your SA from attacking a target adjacent to your ally; you may Disengage away but the BB'd for doesn't need to move to attack your ally.

And if you're going to spend a feat on getting BB, that's a feat you didn't spend on stat increases, sharpshooter, whatever.

BB is nice but it's not overwhelming.

However, once you get to 5th level and beyond the initial hit gets additional thunder damage, and at that point BB is just objectively superior to a single melee attack.

[bid]

Well, at level 10:
- TWF = 2d6+5 * .80 + 5d6 * .96 ~ 26.4
- BB = 2d8+5+5d6 * .80 ~ 25.2
BB does 2 point more base damage, but loses more from missed SA.

So it's not universally true that BB is a good deal. You'll need targets at lower than AC13 to make it work at certain levels.

[leogobsin]

Well, at level 10:
- TWF = 2d6+5 * .80 + 5d6 * .96 ~ 26.4
- BB = 2d8+5+5d6 * .80 ~ 25.2
BB does 2 point more base damage, but loses more from missed SA.

So it's not universally true that BB is a good deal. You'll need targets at lower than AC13 to make it work at certain levels.

Fair yeah, though you may not want to go TWF if you have other uses for your bonus action.

Long story short I'd say that there are definitely builds where Booming Blade is the absolute mathematically provable ideal choice, but those number of those builds is small enough that it isn't really a problem for the balance of the game overall.

[Mikal]

Should every Rogue take it? Yes probably sooner or later, but remember that it is LOUD so it cannot be used at times when stealth is a factor.

No it isn’t. It’s as loud as any other spell casting that doesn’t explicitly say it creates a loud noise

[Laserlight]

However, once you get to 5th level and beyond the initial hit gets additional thunder damage, and at that point BB is just objectively superior to a single melee attack.


A single melee attack with BB is certainly better than a single melee attack without it, but that's not saying much. Even saying "it's better" assumes that you didn't have to give anything up to get BB.

Incidentally, I've played several characters with BB, including my current tempest priest who got it via elf cantrip. It seldom makes much difference; if DPR actually matters, I'll use Shatter or Call Lightning or something of that sort.

[CTurbo]

Also, the short answer is 'if you are in melee, you are roguing wrong'.



Unless specifically built to be a ranged character, every Rogue I have ever made have been very melee heavy. So melee focused in fact that I LOVE the Sentinel feat for my Rogues.

[Malifice]

A good rule of thumb to see if something is very powerful is asking "why should anyone want to skip it?"

So, my question is, is there any reason why a Rogue (and other classes without Extra Attack) should not take Booming Blade via Magic Initiate? Doubly so after the DEX is 20?
Besides, Magic Initiate can give other useful tricks depending of the list chosen. About Booming Blade, any list will do as the casting stat does not count.

I am not saying it breaks the game and it should be banned, I am just saying it is definitely strong.

Because it doesnt work in conjuction with Two weapon fighting; which dramatically increases a Rogues chances to land Sneak Attack.

Would you rather have 2/ chances to land Sneak attack, or 1/ chance and deal a few extra d8 damage if it does hit?

Pretty sure your DPR us much higher with the 2/round attacks over the 1/ round +xd8 Booming blade.

That said, as a Rogue you have things to do with your bonus action also, so it's still a very good option.

[stoutstien]

Pretty sure booming blade is in xans guide also

[Blood of Gaea]

Pretty sure booming blade is in xans guide also
No, it's not.

[LudicSavant]

Well, at level 10:
- TWF = 2d6+5 * .80 + 5d6 * .96 ~ 26.4
- BB = 2d8+5+5d6 * .80 ~ 25.2
BB does 2 point more base damage, but loses more from missed SA.

So it's not universally true that BB is a good deal. You'll need targets at lower than AC13 to make it work at certain levels.

As you allude to, a big upshot of TWF is that you get two chances to hit the Sneak Attack.

One other thing worth factoring in is that Rogue builds that grab BB also often grab Find Familiar and give themselves, or another high damage hitter in the party, the Help action.

[Quoxis]

No it isn’t. It’s as loud as any other spell casting that doesn’t explicitly say it creates a loud noise

To quote SCAG:


On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn.

Unlike thunderclap or knock it doesn’t specify how far the noise is audible, but „booming energy“ is hard to interpret as stealthy whispers.

[Corran]

I don't want to say that BB is a trap for rogues, because it can be great for them. But it isn't all that great if you don't plan for boosting it. To profit from it's secondary damage, you need to cast it against an enemy that has no allies of yours adjacent to it, so that it has to move on its next turn (ie after you disengage and move away from it) and take the secondary damage. Now, that means that you need to have advantage (greater invisibility, familiar), or be a swashbuckler (though if swashbuckler, the enemy you pick for kitting must have no other enemies of yours adjacent to it; and even then, advantage would be needed to tip the math in favor of using BB instead of TWF).

BB is not bad, but it needs some work on your (group's) tactics to make it good on a rogue. It's not automatically the best option, and if it not came with a familiar through the magic initiate feat, I would say that it wouldn't be worth grabbing a feat just for it.

[Mikal]

To quote SCAG:
"On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn."


Unlike thunderclap or knock it doesn’t specify how far the noise is audible, but „booming energy“ is hard to interpret as stealthy whispers.

Who said stealthy whispers (strawman says what?)? It's RAW as loud as any other combat, either spellcasting, ranged, or melee, and is thus as valid as any other "stealthy combat" option outside of a silent casted sleep spell or silence spell followed by combat within said silence.

[Kadesh]

Who said stealthy whispers (strawman says what?)? It's RAW as loud as any other combat, either spellcasting, ranged, or melee, and is thus as valid as any other "stealthy combat" option outside of a silent casted sleep spell or silence spell followed by combat within said silence.

Whe are talking plain english, here.

'Boom usually refers to an onomatopoeic word for the sound that an explosion makes'.

If it was as loud as any other combat, they wouldn't have made specific eference to the onomatopoeic word for the sound of an explosion.

It is loud, and it is noisy, and claiming otherwise is disingenuous to how the english language is typically spoken.

[Mikal]

Whe are talking plain english, here.

'Boom usually refers to an onomatopoeic word for the sound that an explosion makes'.

If it was as loud as any other combat, they wouldn't have made specific eference to the onomatopoeic word for the sound of an explosion.

It is loud, and it is noisy, and claiming otherwise is disingenuous to how the english language is typically spoken.

So in other words, you have no basis on it since we're not dealing with plain english and 5e has shown time and time again that said plain english doesn't matter unless something is explicitly stated.

[LibbyLishly]

GFB works better for my rouge.

My DM likes to use hoards, so there's usually an extra target within five feet, and he uses smart casters who don't necessarily move if they know they're going to take damage. Any target I hit in melee and move away from frequently has a ranged attack anyway and might not bother moving to follow me. Meanwhile, my allies frequently finish off targets before they'd even have a chance to move + take damage. Stealth is a big focus for my particular rogue, too, and BB is not exactly optimal for maintaining that.

There are situations where BB would work just as well, sure, but I find that GFB-friendly situations have come up far more often so far.

[Kadesh]

So in other words, you have no basis on it since we're not dealing with plain english and 5e has shown time and time again that said plain english doesn't matter unless something is explicitly stated.
It explicitly said it is shrouded in booming energy. Energy that booms. Booms are the sounds of explosions. It is surrounded in the sound of explosions.

There is literally nothing more explicit than that.

[PhantomSoul]

Kind of what I'd expected to find from the search, really. Especially that last line!

"Booming blade does make noise. The spell's description says the target is surrounded by booming energy. The DM decides who can hear the booming."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/976918448784621568

[Mikal]

Kind of what I'd expected to find from the search, really. Especially that last line!

"Booming blade does make noise. The spell's description says the target is surrounded by booming energy. The DM decides who can hear the booming."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/976918448784621568

So in other words, just like any other combat. No one ever said it doesn't make noise. If the DM decides to House Rule it to be a level of sound equal to Alarm or Thunderclap or whichever, I'd hope they'd say so in Session 0.

[Kadesh]

So in other words, just like any other combat. No one ever said it doesn't make noise. If the DM decides to House Rule it to be a level of sound equal to Alarm or Thunderclap or whichever, I'd hope they'd say so in Session 0.

Jesus christ.

[ZorroGames]

Jesus christ.

Was He a Rogue? 😉. 😇.

[Laserlight]

It explicitly said it is shrouded in booming energy. Energy that booms. Booms are the sounds of explosions. It is surrounded in the sound of explosions.

There is literally nothing more explicit than that.

Sorry, that turns out not to be the case.

Thunderclap says "You create a burst of thunderous sound, which can be heard 100 feet away".
Thunderous Smite says "Your weapon rings with thunder that is audible within 300 feet of you".
Thunderwave says "the spell emits a thunderous boom audible out to 300 feet."

Those are explicit. By contrast, BB doesn't say a word about being audible at any particular distance. I would argue that the omission means that it's no more noisy than a regular melee attack.

(On Tuesdays and Fridays I'd argue that the omission is just WotC being sloppy and BB ought to be audible to 60ft).

[BaconAwesome]

Sage Advice says who can hear booming blade is up to your GM - I would rule it's louder than normal swordplay but somewhat quieter than a thunderwave, probably about as loud as a normal shout.

I mean, nothing in RAW says that using your free action to shout has the effect of alerting neighboring NPCs, but I would rule that it does.

[MaxWilson]

A good rule of thumb to see if something is very powerful is asking "why should anyone want to skip it?"

So, my question is, is there any reason why a Rogue (and other classes without Extra Attack) should not take Booming Blade via Magic Initiate? Doubly so after the DEX is 20?
Besides, Magic Initiate can give other useful tricks depending of the list chosen. About Booming Blade, any list will do as the casting stat does not count.

I am not saying it breaks the game and it should be banned, I am just saying it is definitely strong.

Well, for one, you could be planning on specializing in archery, and spending a feat on improving your melee game isn't worth the opportunity cost.

In addition, you may not like the social and RP consequences of being a spellcaster. Presumably there's a reason after all you're not a multiclassed Rogue/Diviner 2 already, or similar.

[Derpaligtr]

A good rule of thumb to see if something is very powerful is asking "why should anyone want to skip it?"

So, my question is, is there any reason why a Rogue (and other classes without Extra Attack) should not take Booming Blade via Magic Initiate? Doubly so after the DEX is 20?
Besides, Magic Initiate can give other useful tricks depending of the list chosen. About Booming Blade, any list will do as the casting stat does not count.

I am not saying it breaks the game and it should be banned, I am just saying it is definitely strong.

Rogues need to hit in order to deal sneak attack.

Dual daggers is the way to go for any rogue (that isn't strength based shield master) as it gives you two chances to hit in melee or range. If the first one hits, great! If the first one misses, you got a backup plan.

Rogue's are all about having a backup plan.

Miss with Booming Blade? No sneak attack this turn. Also you MUST be within 5' of an enemy... Ehhh... You can do it a little bit but it-s better to not be that close.

Now, a strength based shield master rogue on the other hand... Yes. Take it. Take it and don't look back. You will have a source of advantage (prone enemies) so your accuracy will be higher.

[Blood of Gaea]

Dual daggers is the way to go for any rogue (that isn't strength based shield master) as it gives you two chances to hit in melee or range. If the first one hits, great! If the first one misses, you got a backup plan.
Dual shortswords are slightly better then daggers, though having a couple daggers stashed on your person is not a bad idea.

[Ganymede]

One reason not to take Booming Blade is because your DM saw that anything of value from SCAG was reprinted in Xanathar's and subsequently banned SCAG from his or her table.

[Kadesh]

One reason not to take Booming Blade is because your DM saw that anything of value from SCAG was reprinted in Xanathar's and subsequently banned SCAG from his or her table.

One of my DM's did that. She had us adventuring around Luskan and Neverwinter... And the SCAG was banned.

[Derpaligtr]

Dual shortswords are slightly better then daggers, though having a couple daggers stashed on your person is not a bad idea.

No they aren't.

You can't throw short swords. That 1 damage die difference isn't enough to make up for the fact you can throw daggers and twf with thrown daggers.

I rather use my bonus action to dash than disengage as it gets me fyrther away.

Daggers, two of them, are the best choice for a rogue (unless strength based shield master type build).

Short swords are nowhere near as good as daggers.

[Blood of Gaea]

No they aren't.

You can't throw short swords. That 1 damage die difference isn't enough to make up for the fact you can throw daggers and twf with thrown daggers.

I rather use my bonus action to dash than disengage as it gets me fyrther away.

Daggers, two of them, are the best choice for a rogue (unless strength based shield master type build).

Short swords are nowhere near as good as daggers.
At that point, I'd build a ranged Rogue. The problem with dual dagger throwing is simply how many you'll be tossing out.

[Derpaligtr]

At that point, I'd build a ranged Rogue. The problem with dual dagger throwing is simply how many you'll be tossing out.

Most combat doesn't last but a few rounds. Go pick up your daggers after combat.

Go ranged and then you block off the option to go melee without needing to drop your bow and work with options you didn't pick (such as feats).

Rogue is about having a back up plan, the dagger is the perfect weapon as it is a melee, thrown, and twf weapon.

That's all without feats.

1 damage on acerage is not worth the versatility that a dagger gices you.

Plus, daggers are easier to hide, for when you need to infiltrate.

[Biggstick]

Rogues need to hit in order to deal sneak attack.

Dual daggers is the way to go for any rogue (that isn't strength based shield master) as it gives you two chances to hit in melee or range. If the first one hits, great! If the first one misses, you got a backup plan.

Rogue's are all about having a backup plan.

Miss with Booming Blade? No sneak attack this turn. Also you MUST be within 5' of an enemy... Ehhh... You can do it a little bit but it-s better to not be that close.

Now, a strength based shield master rogue on the other hand... Yes. Take it. Take it and don't look back. You will have a source of advantage (prone enemies) so your accuracy will be higher.

Shield Master requires you to take the Attack Action to use the Bonus Action Shove.

Booming Blade requires you to take the Cast a Spell Action.

If you're using Booming Blade on your turn, you can't also use the Bonus Action Shove from Shield Master as you haven't taken the proper Actions this turn to trigger that particular Bonus Action.

But as to the original discussion, I would say taking BB is a trap option most of the time. So rarely do I see a group built around properly utilizing Booming Blade to trigger it's secondary effect that I pretty much don't even consider it as potential damage. Now what I see in almost every other combat in which a DM uses more then one creature are creatures standing next to each other. GFB's ability to be used in combat seems way more effective to me, as you're way more likely to be able to trigger it's rider effect.

This is just personal experience though, so take it with a grain of salt.

I also think Rogues are best suited toward eventually picking up Sharpshooter (not for increasing damage, but to increase effective range) and using a Bow of some sort once they're in the teens level-wise. It's just too dangerous and there is too much damage being done to those in melee range for a Rogue to want to stay there longer then a single round.

[Lorsa]

I have a question about Booming Blade which is almost, but not 100% obvious. Can you make the melee attack in the same action as you cast the spell?

[Blood of Gaea]

I have a question about Booming Blade which is almost, but not 100% obvious. Can you make the melee attack in the same action as you cast the spell?
You make a single melee weapon attack as part of casting the spell, if the attack lands then the spell comes into effect.

[Citan]

A good rule of thumb to see if something is very powerful is asking "why should anyone want to skip it?"

So, my question is, is there any reason why a Rogue (and other classes without Extra Attack) should not take Booming Blade via Magic Initiate? Doubly so after the DEX is 20?
Besides, Magic Initiate can give other useful tricks depending of the list chosen. About Booming Blade, any list will do as the casting stat does not count.

I am not saying it breaks the game and it should be banned, I am just saying it is definitely strong.
Hi!


You don't want to play a Magical Character, you don't want to give the game away by making a massive boom, you want to attack from range where you are harder to spot and get more benefit by taking Alert, Sharpshooter, or a +2 Dex ASI so you can stay hidden, be more accurate, and still do more damage that isn't reliant on making a big noise, and a creature simply staying where they are or not attacking you with a ranged weapon.

Booming Blade is good. But the opportunity cost can justify not taking it often.

Also, the short answer is 'if you are in melee, you are roguing wrong'.


A lot of people seem to assume BB will always get you the "when they move" damage, but that's nonsense. Especially if you're getting your SA from attacking a target adjacent to your ally; you may Disengage away but the BB'd for doesn't need to move to attack your ally.

And if you're going to spend a feat on getting BB, that's a feat you didn't spend on stat increases, sharpshooter, whatever.

BB is nice but it's not overwhelming.
These two posts sump it up well ime.

If I pick Arcane Trickster, then obviously I'll get it.
If I play other archetypes? Meh, I may take it if I really don't know how to spend my 12th or beyond ASI.
But I'd certainly pick any two-three among Elven Accuracy/+2 DEX, Ritual Caster: Wizard (unless DM not nice), Sentinel, Mobile (except if Swash obviously), Healer (if Thief) and any other racial feat (Elves and Halflings have it good) before taking that one.
Unless I'm a Rogue with 18 DEX, Elven Accuracy and a way from myself or an ally to consistently get advantage on melee weapon attacks in which case Spell Sniper or Magic Initiate would become a priority, paired with Warcaster.

Also this...

Most combat doesn't last but a few rounds. Go pick up your daggers after combat.

Go ranged and then you block off the option to go melee without needing to drop your bow and work with options you didn't pick (such as feats).

Rogue is about having a back up plan, the dagger is the perfect weapon as it is a melee, thrown, and twf weapon.

That's all without feats.

1 damage on acerage is not worth the versatility that a dagger gices you.

Plus, daggers are easier to hide, for when you need to infiltrate.
100% agreed with this (well, except the first sentence, I have a different experience ^^), and that's also why Mobile is another great feat of choice for a (melee) Rogue.


Shield Master requires you to take the Attack Action to use the Bonus Action Shove.

Booming Blade requires you to take the Cast a Spell Action.

You probably misunderstood him. I think Derpaligtr is well aware of how RAW works but was not clear enough in formulation, but was indeed speaking of taking Shield Master *instead* of Magic Initiate.
We'll just, to be nice, put under the rug the fact that no Rogue gets proficiency in shield* so you'd need multiclass or Moderately Armored before that. :smallbiggrin:


*Not even Swashbuckler, in official content anyways. I think I remember the UA version got that proficiency, so maybe the mistake comes from that. ;)

[Tanarii]

Should every Rogue take it? Yes probably sooner or later, but remember that it is LOUD so it cannot be used at times when stealth is a factor.


you don't want to give the game away by making a massive boom,
Booming blade is no louder than Shatter or Lightning Bolt or (potentially depending on the DM) normal battlecries, parrying, sword on shield or armor, and cries of pain.

Possibly you're thinking of Thunderclap or Thunderwave?


(On Tuesdays and Fridays I'd argue that the omission is just WotC being sloppy and BB ought to be audible to 60ft).Lol

But on a serious note, 60ft is probably reasonable for most loud D&D combat to be heard at. If quietly ie ambient noise might make a creature miss it, and it might be a more one Orc saying to another "hey, did you hear something?" reaction

[Beelzebubba]

Every character that took Booming Blade was munchkin-sized to the point of utter ridiculousness.

So, I house-ruled BB, GFB, and LL to be on the Eldritch Knight spell list. Like the arrow spells are on a Ranger list, and unable to be taken by other classes.

This whole thing is because they cheaped out and didn't make specific Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster spell lists.

[Mikal]

Every character that took Booming Blade was munchkin-sized to the point of utter ridiculousness.
The math disagrees.


So, I house-ruled BB, GFB, and LL to be on the Eldritch Knight spell list. Like the arrow spells are on a Ranger list, and unable to be taken by other classes.

This whole thing is because they cheaped out and didn't make specific Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster spell lists.

They did. It's called the Wizard spell list specific schools, except for levels X, Y, and Z.

[R.Shackleford]

A good rule of thumb to see if something is very powerful is asking "why should anyone want to skip it?"

So, my question is, is there any reason why a Rogue (and other classes without Extra Attack) should not take Booming Blade via Magic Initiate? Doubly so after the DEX is 20?
Besides, Magic Initiate can give other useful tricks depending of the list chosen. About Booming Blade, any list will do as the casting stat does not count.

I am not saying it breaks the game and it should be banned, I am just saying it is definitely strong.

Mostly because booming blade doesn't fit the world my group is playing in (I'm shameless :smalltongue:)

Also, for most Rogues I would guess, having something called "booming" isn't really in character. Rogues are typically sneaky after all. While it doesn't state it out right, saying that it makes more noise than a dagger to a kidney wouldn't exactly be out of the question.

[Kadesh]

I like how the descriptive word, 'Booming' has now been specifically decided to be meaningless by certain people.

Lets call up the OED and tell them that 'booming' has no meaning, because 5e didn't put a hard limit on how far the energy could be heard.

SMDH.

[Mikal]

I like how the descriptive word, 'Booming' has now been specifically decided to be meaningless by certain people.

Lets call up the OED and tell them that 'booming' has no meaning, because 5e didn't put a hard limit on how far the energy could be heard.

SMDH.

OED =/= Game rules

[Kadesh]

OED =/= Game rules

At what stage do you choose which words are game ruoes, and which ones aren't?

[R.Shackleford]

At what stage do you choose which words are game ruoes, and which ones aren't?

Whichever supports your opinion on things, of course.

[Laserlight]

I like how the descriptive word, 'Booming' has now been specifically decided to be meaningless by certain people.

Lets call up the OED and tell them that 'booming' has no meaning, because 5e didn't put a hard limit on how far the energy could be heard.

SMDH.

You're free to rule it any way you want at your table, but it's a ruling, not RAW. Because RAW just doesn't say.

By the way, if you read the rest of the spell, you'll see the target is "sheathed in booming energy". If all the energy is there forming a sheath around the target, it's not off making sound 60 / 100 / 300ft away.

[Kadesh]

You're free to rule it any way you want at your table, but it's a ruling, not RAW. Because RAW just doesn't say.

By the way, if you read the rest of the spell, you'll see the target is "sheathed in booming energy". If all the energy is there forming a sheath around the target, it's not off making sound 60 / 100 / 300ft away.

Do you need some more straws to grasp at, or are comfy with those?

Ask anyone is booming typically loud? And would you say that something described as 'booming' to be louder, or perhaps greater than normal? And thus if I was to list things that might boom, and list them as say explosions, thunder, drums, bass, sonic booms, would they associate that as a loud noise in comparison to normal?

And if I was describe sticking a dagger in someone's throat, and they were then surrounded by 'booming' energy, would that be more or less wuiet than sticking a dagger in someone's throat?

And if I had to describe the difference between between an attack that made a loud bang or percussive sound and an attack which didn't, would 'booming' be a possible example of a fitting word?

There are no rules for blowing a trumpet in 5e. Would you say that fighting taking place with a Trumpet wouod be more or less audible than fighting without a trumpet?

Enjoy your straws, fellas.

[R.Shackleford]

Do you need some more straws to grasp at, or are comfy with those?

Ask anyone is booming typically loud? And would you say that something described as 'booming' to be louder, or perhaps greater than normal? And thus if I was to list things that might boom, and list them as say explosions, thunder, drums, bass, sonic booms, would they associate that as a loud noise in comparison to normal?

And if I was describe sticking a dagger in someone's throat, and they were then surrounded by 'booming' energy, would that be more or less wuiet than sticking a dagger in someone's throat?

And if I had to describe the difference between between an attack that made a loud bang or percussive sound and an attack which didn't, would 'booming' be a possible example of a fitting word?

There are no rules for blowing a trumpet in 5e. Would you say that fighting taking place with a Trumpet wouod be more or less audible than fighting without a trumpet?

Enjoy your straws, fellas.

5e was also design with the idea of simplicity too... Soo... BOOM = Loud at it's simplest form.

[Kadesh]

Who said stealthy whispers (strawman says what?)? It's RAW as loud as any other combat, either spellcasting, ranged, or melee, and is thus as valid as any other "stealthy combat" option outside of a silent casted sleep spell or silence spell followed by combat within said silence.
Loud is stealthy.

Rolleyes.gif

[Aimeryan]

Do you need some more straws to grasp at, or are comfy with those?

Ask anyone is booming typically loud? And would you say that something described as 'booming' to be louder, or perhaps greater than normal? And thus if I was to list things that might boom, and list them as say explosions, thunder, drums, bass, sonic booms, would they associate that as a loud noise in comparison to normal?

And if I was describe sticking a dagger in someone's throat, and they were then surrounded by 'booming' energy, would that be more or less wuiet than sticking a dagger in someone's throat?

And if I had to describe the difference between between an attack that made a loud bang or percussive sound and an attack which didn't, would 'booming' be a possible example of a fitting word?

There are no rules for blowing a trumpet in 5e. Would you say that fighting taking place with a Trumpet wouod be more or less audible than fighting without a trumpet?

Enjoy your straws, fellas.

Something makes noise when some of the energy involved is passed on to the surrounding medium - more energy, louder noise. Booming blade says that the target is sheathed in booming energy, as Laserlight mentioned; this means the energy is not being passed on to the surrounding medium - it is staying with the target.

To put in another way, would booming blade make a loud noise in space?

[Mikal]

At what stage do you choose which words are game ruoes, and which ones aren't?

It’s simple. The rules are the things which are stated in the rule books.

Show me in the rule books where it’s stated that the sound is louder than any other form of combat or spell that doesn’t specifically say it makes a loud noise such as alarm.

Oh wait. You can’t.

[Sigreid]

For whatever reasons no one at my table has taken either yet.

[Spiritchaser]

For the rogues at my table there is one simple reason why booming blade is a wretched idea.

It’s loud.

For a party that depends on stealth for survival. Getting in, ganking some poor sap, and slinking away before all hades comes after them (not quite literally yet, that’s 3-5 levels away) is life and death.

For those who question if it’s loud, I’d appeal to common sense, reasonableness and sanity.

Green flame is better, but even it has issues... it’s a blazing green sword, not too bad but not optimal for subtilty

[Mikal]

For the rogues at my table there is one simple reason why booming blade is a wretched idea.

It’s loud.

RAW it isn’t.


For a party that depends on stealth for survival. Getting in, ganking some poor sap, and slinking away before all hades comes after them (not quite literally yet, that’s 3-5 levels away) is life and death.

For those who question if it’s loud, I’d appeal to common sense, reasonableness and sanity.

Green flame is better, but even it has issues... it’s a blazing green sword, not too bad but not optimal for subtilty

Both are just as stealthy as any other combat, and in gfb’s place more so potentially than say using a torch or actual light spell, since those have specific illumination levels and gfb doesn’t.

[TheBirba]

A good rule of thumb to see if something is very powerful is asking "why should anyone want to skip it?"

So, my question is, is there any reason why a Rogue (and other classes without Extra Attack) should not take Booming Blade via Magic Initiate? Doubly so after the DEX is 20?
Besides, Magic Initiate can give other useful tricks depending of the list chosen. About Booming Blade, any list will do as the casting stat does not count.

I am not saying it breaks the game and it should be banned, I am just saying it is definitely strong.

From an optimiser point of view, there is no reason. It's pretty much free damage no matter what, I take it even if I plan on playing a ranged rogue after I reach 20 Dex.


Dual daggers is the way to go for any rogue (that isn't strength based shield master) as it gives you two chances to hit in melee or range. If the first one hits, great! If the first one misses, you got a backup plan.

I strongly disagree. While your point is valid, I'd argue that not getting hit is also part of the Rogue's plan just as much as hitting (at least in the concept of the class). Therefore, unless you're a Swashbuckler, you should reserve your bonus action to disengage from your target. It's a matter of gameplay I suppose, but when I play Rogue I am never in the position to be hit in the first place: dead characters deal no damage.


Loud is stealthy.

Rolleyes.gif

Dude, you made your point already, just agree to disagree and let it go. It's not like it's the only wording issue in the game

[NorthernPhoenix]

I'd personally rule Booming Blade to be extremely loud.

But beyond that, knowing magic at all doesn't fit every (or even most) rogue character concepts, and I'd be extremely disappointed if someone felt they needed to compromise that out of some sense of regret created on forums like these (which often show up when people Google "booming blade").

[Tanarii]

For those who question if it’s loud, I’d appeal to common sense, reasonableness and sanity.Some level of that is reasonable. I mean, a Lightning Bolt should probably be somewhat loud too. Also Shatter. Also general battle, smashing weapons into other weapons or armor, yelling in fear and pain and to keep your courage up (battle cries). Etc.

Thing is ... nothing specifies how loud all this stuff is. And some might be slightly louder than the others. It's all pretty clearly louder than a stealthy person using Skulker to not give his position away when making a ranged weapon attack with a shortbow or crossbow or blowgun.

Conversely, it's clearly NOT as loud as the things where volume is called out. Thunderwave and Knock are clearly audible at 300ft. That's a HUGE range for sound to propagate, assuming it's not just magical reasons why. Similarly Thunderclap specifies 100ft apparently, although for some reason I though it was 300ft as well. Even 100ft is fairly long distance for sound to go.

For reference, a person shouting sounds approximately as loud as a whisper at about 60ft.

Edit: For booming blade, I can see where it might have just been an oversight, after all it is a later release, and clearly a not very well thought out one at that. OTOH, nothing says the booming energy has to explode. I might implode, making almost no noise that anyone else can hear.

[Kadesh]

Something makes noise when some of the energy involved is passed on to the surrounding medium - more energy, louder noise. Booming blade says that the target is sheathed in booming energy, as Laserlight mentioned; this means the energy is not being passed on to the surrounding medium - it is staying with the target.

To put in another way, would booming blade make a loud noise in space?

o.O

Nobody said it is the target making noise. It is the booming energy which is making the noise. Which IS contacting the surrounding medium. As for making noise in space, absolutely. It has the capacity to make noise just not the ability for us to hear it, because the medium doesn't allow it. You can't hear a star, but thst doesn't stop it being noisy. A deaf person doesn't stop something from making noise. Not being present in a forest when a tree falls doesn't prevent it from making noise.

Another straw and a half. Jesus.

[Spiritchaser]

RAW it isn’t.



Both are just as stealthy as any other combat, and in gfb’s place more so potentially than say using a torch or actual light spell, since those have specific illumination levels and gfb doesn’t.


If you wish to presume that booming blade is quieter than a single surprise round of two melee characters sneak attacking/striking to eliminate a single, moderately weak, but infinitely inconvenient sentry before it squeaks, then that is of course your business.

I consider that illogical, but to each their own.

As for a torch? A torch would be suicidal.

I’d rule that Even Pass without trace and expertise with stealth and any roll possible will simply fail against almost all observers in nearly all circumstances if you are carrying a torch around. Sure you break stealth when you attack, but that guard isn’t going to be surprised in the first place if you’re carrying around a light source, and the next observer down the wall is going to have a good chance to see a flash of light from green flame blade. I’ll grant it’s better than booming blade by a large measure, but still dangerous.

For rogues that have to slink about and surgically remove problems, these just are not good ideas. Neither are most spells. (Some sorcerer subtle spells excepted).

[Citan]

I really don't understand people daring say that Booming Blade is not loud.

I can understand, at limit, the point of "energy is sheathed around the enemy" as in "when you make contact with weapon, it's not louder than usual" (meaning it can be quiet enough).
But considering that...
- It's when the target moves that it takes damage.
- That this damage is thunder.
- And that all noise-associated damage-dealing spells deal *thunder damage*
- And that the name of the spell is freaking *BOOMING* blade...

Nobody can reasonably pretend that there is no noise created at least when the afflicted creature moves (it's obviously to be understood as "booming energy stays in frail balance, which is disrupted when creature makes a move*).
Which is "stealth-breaking" enough in a number of situations to make it a no-go for any infiltration situation.

Now of course, in the heat of an open fight, I don't think "how louder than battle" one rules it to be would make any real difference.

* That is, while I'm at it, a big gripe that I have with how the spell was designed.
It writes as "as soon as creature moves", hinting at the effect at described...
Even if it changes position as little as one feet.
However same creature, by RAW, can perfectly take action/bonus action/reaction to move arms or legs any way it would like (casting a spell, defending, making an attack) without risking the effect.

All because the "move" word in description evidently aimed the "movement mechanic" and not "move" in the broadest sense.
And I feel this very strange and clunky.
They should have either made it a 2nd level spell that activates on "any kind of movement" (basically creature must stand 100% still -meaning applying the equivalent of stunned condition per own will-).
Or impose a minimum feet moved condition.

[Willie the Duck]

Nobody can reasonably pretend that there is no noise created at least when the afflicted creature moves

Here's the thing. I've quietly watched this little discussion, and it is pretty clear that people aren't pretending that this is the case. There is no debate on whether the spell makes noise. There is only debate on whether it makes an exceptional amount of noise (what that threshold is, is going to be subjective as well, but for the sake of arguments, roughly equal to any other combat noise). And, by all accounts, the consensus seems to be that the rules do not rule clearly one way or the other*, with fiercely held exceptions on each side.
*I would have thought that this would be an uncontroversial statement, but apparently I am wrong.


I really don't understand people daring say that Booming Blade is not loud.

Daring is the right word. As in 'I dare you!' or 'how dare you?!' This is a pissing match (on both sides, equal blame). As in, 'who are you to tell me that booming blades are loud/not loud, when the rules don't specify?' Both sides are taking on the mantle of aggrieved, believing the other to be claiming moral superiority without justification.

This is just like that one guy around here (forget who) who has strong opinions on whether druids not wearing metal armor is even a rule or not. The only wrong answer is unceremoniously declaring those who disagree with oneself on an open-to-interpretation question clearly wrong (because the answer isn't clearly one way or the other).


Now of course, in the heat of an open fight, I don't think "how louder than battle" one rules it to be would make any real difference.

And there's the truth of it. Every battle is going to be different, and the DM is going to have make rulings on when the possibility that people with X distance and Y closed doors between them and the fight a) might hear the commotion, and later b) have any possibility of having not heard it (the two most relevant thresholds, although there are often an entire spectrum of outcomes, depending).


All because the "move" word in description evidently aimed the "movement mechanic" and not "move" in the broadest sense.
And I feel this very strange and clunky.
They should have either made it a 2nd level spell that activates on "any kind of movement" (basically creature must stand 100% still -meaning applying the equivalent of stunned condition per own will-).
Or impose a minimum feet moved condition.

The whole thing is gamist as can be. Involuntary movement is excluded because... probably merely because it'd set up too many combat combos ('you Booming Blade the Guy, I'll shove them.'). I think if I were designing the system, and wanted a combat cantrip which aided in zone-of-control (my interpretation of the reason for the BB rider), I would have simply made one which dropped an opponent's speed to 0 in a sentinel-feat-like effect.

[Laserlight]

One assumption is that "a rogue wouldn't take it because it's not stealthy". Not all rogue builds want to be stealthy, or at least not once combat has started. I can imagine a Swashbuckler taking it because it's flashy (or at least boomy). I wouldn't, because i'd rather TWF to make sure I get SA, but I can imagine someone doing it.

[Tanarii]

Here's the thing. I've quietly watched this little discussion, and it is pretty clear that people aren't pretending that this is the case. There is no debate on whether the spell makes noise. There is only debate on whether it makes an exceptional amount of noise (what that threshold is, is going to be subjective as well, but for the sake of arguments, roughly equal to any other combat noise). And, by all accounts, the consensus seems to be that the rules do not rule clearly one way or the other*, with fiercely held exceptions on each side.
*I would have thought that this would be an uncontroversial statement, but apparently I am wrong.
I hold two positions:
1) Definitively RAW, nothing says it makes an exceptional amount of noise.
2) Technically RAW, nothing says it makes ANY more than a basic very minimal amount of noise.

I recognize that #2 is a non-intuitive and parsing reading of RAW. But anyone trying to argue that Booming Blade is exceptionally loud is clearly in error. Not only does RAW not indicate that it makes exceptional noise, we have plenty of examples of RAW spells that DO generate a significant noise at ranges of 300ft or 100ft. That indicates they either didn't write the spell very well, or they intentionally decided it's not audible at those ranges.

It's entirely possible to narrate the spell working in a way consistent with either. If all the thunder-damage sheathing booming energy is directed inward at the creature, we can assume an implosion of some kind, with either less-than-exceptional or even almost-quiet noise levels being the result.

[Willie the Duck]

I recognize that #2 is a non-intuitive and parsing reading of RAW. But anyone trying to argue that Booming Blade is exceptionally loud is clearly in error.

I would posit my position to not be 'anyone trying to argue that Booming Blade is exceptionally loud is clearly in error,' but instead, 'anyone trying to argue that Booming Blade is clearly exceptionally loud is in error.' As in, the matter is not clearly decided one way or the other.


Not only does RAW not indicate that it makes exceptional noise, we have plenty of examples of RAW spells that DO generate a significant noise at ranges of 300ft or 100ft. That indicates they either didn't write the spell very well, or they intentionally decided it's not audible at those ranges.

I would call this arguable and non-definitive extrapolation (as in yes, I find it convincing, but hardly slam-dunk inarguable, or the like). Yes, the designers did provide examples (such as the well known Knock spell) where the exceptional noise is noted and given specific characteristics (audibility distance), and chose not to do so with this spell. I would posit that that, while there are in fact three reasonable interpretations: 1) did not write the spell well, 2) intentionally decided it is not audible at those ranges, or 3) intentionally left the consequences of the spell be subject to DM interpretation, as befitting a rule set where rulings over rules is a guiding principle.

[Tanarii]

I would posit my position to not be 'anyone trying to argue that Booming Blade is exceptionally loud is clearly in error,' but instead, 'anyone trying to argue that Booming Blade is clearly exceptionally loud is in error.' As in, the matter is not clearly decided one way or the other.Good correction. For my statement to make sense it should have been "anyone trying to argue that Booming Blade is must be exceptionally loud is clearly in error".

Edit: Sorry, no that's not really the case. You can either argue the devs left out a necessary clause (a la Thunderclap, Thunderwave, and Knock). Or that it is definitely NOT exceptionally loud. But you can't argue that it is exceptionally loud (either must or might be), on the scale of those other spells, and be correct, by RAW. This is a case of the exception proves the rule.

[Citan]

The whole thing is gamist as can be. Involuntary movement is excluded because... probably merely because it'd set up too many combat combos ('you Booming Blade the Guy, I'll shove them.'). I think if I were designing the system, and wanted a combat cantrip which aided in zone-of-control (my interpretation of the reason for the BB rider), I would have simply made one which dropped an opponent's speed to 0 in a sentinel-feat-like effect.

You understood nothing of what I said, sadly, both on that and the other point.
I was not speaking of forced movement. I was speaking of ANY movement, INCLUDING the ones a creature necessarily makes to do anything.
By RAW, as is, for a creature under Booming Blade effect, just moving its position a few centimeters away would blow the sheathed energy. But making a big movement of arms to throw a weapon or maul the guy besides wouldn't trigger it.
Because text says "move" as in "creature movement as defined in PHB", because understanding it in a broader meaning would imply that taking whatever action triggers the damage, and that would be far too powerful for a cantrip.

That's the stupid, completely artificial thing with how BB is written.

Hence my suggestion: either say "when you move at least 5 feet" as a cantrip, or say "choose to act like stunned or take damage" as a 2nd level spell.

As for the loud vs loud: I don't care much about what number of decibels people consider to be for a use in-fight.
But people saying you can use it in stealth situations are just "irrealistic" (for what is worth such a word in a fantasy game^).

Because it's necessarily loud, at the very least if/when creature decides to move away (which a sentinel would certainly do by default). Certainly not as loud as the spells explicitely giving a hearing range, but still at the very least as loud as someone speaking in high volume.
Especially when Thunderclap, which deals somewhat similar damage, of same nature, with the same kind of origin (air displacement), specifices it's heard up to 100 feet.
So it's pretty reasonable to expect a Booming Blade's post-effect to be hearable up to 30 / 40 feet away.

[Sigreid]

It's magic. There's no reason the boom couldn't be directed inward toward the target and be mostly absorbed by its body. That said, rulings not rules. However works for your table is just ducky and not worth a multi page arguement.

[Spiritchaser]

One assumption is that "a rogue wouldn't take it because it's not stealthy". Not all rogue builds want to be stealthy, or at least not once combat has started. I can imagine a Swashbuckler taking it because it's flashy (or at least boomy). I wouldn't, because i'd rather TWF to make sure I get SA, but I can imagine someone doing it.

It’s actually been my experience that “most” rogues would rather be in your face assault skirmishers, it’s really only been in my last campaign that the party has gone all splinter cell

[Willie the Duck]

Edit: Sorry, no that's not really the case. You can either argue the devs left out a necessary clause (a la Thunderclap, Thunderwave, and Knock). Or that it is definitely NOT exceptionally loud. But you can't argue that it is exceptionally loud (either must or might be), on the scale of those other spells, and be correct, by RAW. This is a case of the exception proves the rule.

I didn't argue that. I argued that it is no clear delineation of how loud it is. Don't put words in my mouth.


You understood nothing of what I said, sadly, both on that and the other point.

Wow. No. Rude much? I understood fine. I just started from where you left off and went in my own direction. What I mentioned was corollary to what you stated, moving towards how I would have made the spell.



Because text says "move" as in "creature movement as defined in PHB", because understanding it in a broader meaning would imply that taking whatever action triggers the damage, and that would be far too powerful for a cantrip.

Exactly. What kind of movement is and isn't allowed is arbitrary and gamist. How utterly silly of me to assume you would appreciate continued thought down this avenue of reasoning. :smallconfused:

[Aimeryan]

Nobody said it is the target making noise.

Agreed, and no one still is.


o.O

It is the booming energy which is making the noise. Which IS contacting the surrounding medium. As for making noise in space, absolutely. It has the capacity to make noise just not the ability for us to hear it, because the medium doesn't allow it. You can't hear a star, but thst doesn't stop it being noisy. A deaf person doesn't stop something from making noise. Not being present in a forest when a tree falls doesn't prevent it from making noise.

Another straw and a half. Jesus.

You are mixing up EM noise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference) with sound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound) noise.

There is no sound in space specifically because there is no transfer to a surrounding medium. The fact that the booming energy is sheathed around the target means that the energy is being prevented from being transferred to the surrounding medium, hence no noise. This is the same way a sword sheath prevents a sword from interacting with the otherwise surrounding medium.

Now, it is possible that when the target moves and the booming energy damages the target that the booming energy is also released into the surrounding medium - however, it does not state this at all. Even if this does occur, the energy that is absorbed by the target is energy not being transferred to the surrounding medium, which means less noise - potentially no more than a whisper.

[Ganymede]

This is the same way a sword sheath prevents a sword from interacting with the otherwise surrounding medium.

Huh?

Sheathes don't do that. A hot sword still warms the environment around it despite being sheathed. A singing sword still vibrates the environment around it despite being sheathed.

[Aimeryan]

Huh?

Sheathes don't do that. A hot sword still warms the environment around it despite being sheathed. A singing sword still vibrates the environment around it despite being sheathed.

Because a sword sheath is for sheathing the sword, not energy. An energy sheath however...

[Willie the Duck]

Because a sword sheath is for sheathing the sword, not energy. An energy sheath however...

Before people jump on this questioning what that is, how about we all agree that the vacuum of space does a good job of disrupting the transference of sound, a partial job of insulating thermally, and a poor job of insulating against any sharp edges the sun might have; a sword sheath is only designed for that last one and does a good job of it?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Ultimately it's up to the DM either way, so the actually important question in my mind when deciding isn't words pedantry about sound, but "does booming blade really need the most beneficial interpretation possible?" I think the answer is no.

[Ganymede]

Because a sword sheath is for sheathing the sword, not energy. An energy sheath however...

Is a sheath for the hapless victim of Booming Blade?

I don't see where that gets us.

[Aimeryan]

Is a sheath for the hapless victim of Booming Blade?

I don't see where that gets us.

I don't understand the question.

From the spell we know that there is indeed a sheath for the booming energy (it says so). A sheath for energy should contain energy (otherwise, what is it doing?). If the energy is contained there is no sound derived from it.


Presumably, when the spell ends the sheath does as well - what then happens to the energy? Well the spell says the target takes damage from it, so at least some of it is going into the target. The debatable point here is how much, if any, then goes into the environment? The spell doesn't say. It could easily be any amount, short of 100% (0% included). We also don't know how much energy is there in the first place. So, it could easily be no sound at all, or it could be the full boom of a volcano exploding heard hundreds of miles away (unlikely for cantrip level power, however).

The only comparable spell is Thunderclap, being another cantrip with thunder damage. It is an AOE, of comparable damage (ignoring the melee hit) - d6. The sound can be heard from 100ft away. So should Booming Blade be heard 100ft away?

Well, Thunderclap is an AOE; it is specifically without focus for its effect - everything nearby takes the damage. Booming Blade only damages the target - the energy must be very much focused. Hence, the energy released to the environment must be far less than that of Thunderclap. Hence, the sound created must be far less than that of Thunderclap. At that point, you are pretty much at normal combat sound levels.

[Tanarii]

I didn't argue that. I argued that it is no clear delineation of how loud it is. Don't put words in my mouth.
You generically, not you specifically.

[Willie the Duck]

You generically, not you specifically.

Got it.

I'm not sure, though, that anyone was arguing that, "it is exceptionally loud (either must or might be), on the scale of those other spells (Knock & Thunder Wave)"

We seem to have moved on to comparing BB to stars, though.

[Kadesh]

The fact that the booming energy is sheathed around the target means that the energy is being prevented from being transferred to the surrounding medium, hence no noise.

Again, questioning eyebrow raise. The sound is what is sheathing the target. Sweet. What is sheathing the sound sheathe though and preventing that from being heard?

[Crgaston]

Some observations.

First, stand on one end of a football field and clap. Can someone standing at the other end hear the clap?
That’s 300 feet. Not a particularly loud sound, right?

Now, do thunder wave and knock make enough sound to be audible at 300’ only if it is 300 unobstructed feet? What about in a tunnel? That handclap is going to go a lot further in a rock cylinder. So wouldn’t the initial noise need to be much quieter in a tunnel than on an open field?

What about through solid rock?

RAW, there’s no difference. So does the volume of the sound vary according to the environment?

[Ganymede]

I don't understand the question.

From the spell we know that there is indeed a sheath for the booming energy (it says so). A sheath for energy should contain energy (otherwise, what is it doing?). If the energy is contained there is no sound derived from it.
.

Ok, I see the issue.

The spell says that the sheath is composed of booming energy and that the target is the thing that is being sheathed.

It sounds like you think that the booming energy is being sheathed, but that's not the case.

[Spiritchaser]

Some level of that is reasonable. I mean, a Lightning Bolt should probably be somewhat loud too. Also Shatter. Also general battle, smashing weapons into other weapons or armor, yelling in fear and pain and to keep your courage up (battle cries). Etc.

Thing is ... nothing specifies how loud all this stuff is. And some might be slightly louder than the others. It's all pretty clearly louder than a stealthy person using Skulker to not give his position away when making a ranged weapon attack with a shortbow or crossbow or blowgun.

Conversely, it's clearly NOT as loud as the things where volume is called out. Thunderwave and Knock are clearly audible at 300ft. That's a HUGE range for sound to propagate, assuming it's not just magical reasons why. Similarly Thunderclap specifies 100ft apparently, although for some reason I though it was 300ft as well. Even 100ft is fairly long distance for sound to go.

For reference, a person shouting sounds approximately as loud as a whisper at about 60ft.

Edit: For booming blade, I can see where it might have just been an oversight, after all it is a later release, and clearly a not very well thought out one at that. OTOH, nothing says the booming energy has to explode. I might implode, making almost no noise that anyone else can hear.

I wouldn’t disagree on most of these points. Even “yell” volume is negotiable enough that it’s not sensible to differ (though my daughter can clearly express herself at considerable range) Lightning bolt, even With subtle spell, will attract attention, and so will most casting.

I imagine different tables will have different standards, much as they do for what qualifies for advantage in stealth.

But I think that presuming a silent implosion (and I appreciate you were doing this hypothetically) is enough of a stretch that I’m going to discount it as unreasonable. Partly for balance, but mostly because it’s a less obvious conclusion to draw from what’s written

[Tanarii]

Got it.

I'm not sure, though, that anyone was arguing that, "it is exceptionally loud (either must or might be), on the scale of those other spells (Knock & Thunder Wave)"
I agree. Some of us saw "Booming Blade is loud", thought "no louder than any other spell", and started objecting. Because we were objecting to the idea that "loud" = "louder than any other spell" = "Thunderclap, Thunderwave, or Knock" loud.

Others clearly say "it's not loud RAW" and objected to the idea that it's clearly louder than, say, a Rogue using Skulker to stay in hiding after firing a bow or crossbow.

These are two extremes. I don't think thunder damage is inherently much louder than any other damaging spell, unless it says so. I mean, even thunderclap is saying its 3x the detection range of talking loudly. So clearly normal thunder spells can't be more than maybe double 50-60ft. On the other hand, I don't think it's intended you can cast and have people through the thin apartment wall not hear it either. :smallamused:



But I think that presuming a silent implosion (and I appreciate you were doing this hypothetically) is enough of a stretch that I’m going to discount it as unreasonable. Partly for balance, but mostly because it’s a less obvious conclusion to draw from what’s written
Totally a stretch. :smallbiggrin:

[Aimeryan]

Ok, I see the issue.

The spell says that the sheath is composed of booming energy and that the target is the thing that is being sheathed.

It sounds like you think that the booming energy is being sheathed, but that's not the case.

The spell says: "...becomes sheathed in booming energy until..."

The issue here is that energy itself can not sheath the target - it would naturally spread. There has to be a sheath around the energy for the target to be sheathed in energy. Regardless, it is a moot point; we know the energy only affects the target, whatever the cause may be, and thus not making any appreciable noise (as Thunderclap does).

[Willie the Duck]

There has to be a sheath around the energy for the target to be sheathed in energy.

Honestly? No. No it really doesn't. I hate to pull out 'because magic,' but 'because magic.' Also, because game designers are not physicists (and we'll ignore that a physicist would bitch slap the entire concept of isolated 'booming energy' at all). The subject is jacketed by the energy because that's the spell description.


Regardless, it is a moot point; we know the energy only affects the target, whatever the cause may be, and thus not making any appreciable noise (as Thunderclap does).

If Thunderclap is our threshold for appreciable, then this is clearly the case.

[Ganymede]

The issue here is that energy itself can not sheath the target

The spell literally says it does.

"the target... becomes sheathed in booming energy"

There it is, in black and white. The booming energy, itself, sheathes the target.

I can't even begin to fathom your position here.


we know the energy only affects the target, whatever the cause may be, and thus not making any appreciable noise (as Thunderclap does).

It sounds like you're saying that only the targets of spells can perceive their sensory effects (the energy of a firebolt only affects the target, so only the target can perceive its light, heat, and sound?). I'm sorry, but that's absolutely batty.

[Beelzebubba]

The math disagrees.

{scrubbed}

The players were being munchkin as hell. That means choosing every single thing to get mechanical superiority, and trying to outshine the other players, even when we explicitly said in our group charter that we have a mix of newbies and old-schoolers so you should throttle back on the turbo.

That means it was the most reliable symptom.



They did. It's called the Wizard spell list specific schools, except for levels X, Y, and Z.

{scrubbed}

If it's on the Wizard list, then it's available to every single class that wants to take Magic Initiate.

I made it Eldritch Knight only.

Thank you for playing.

[Tanarii]

{scrubbed}
Its better to just put people on ignore and noy respond when you feel this is the case. ;)

[Aimeryan]

Honestly? No. No it really doesn't. I hate to pull out 'because magic,' but 'because magic.' Also, because game designers are not physicists (and we'll ignore that a physicist would bitch slap the entire concept of isolated 'booming energy' at all). The subject is jacketed by the energy because that's the spell description.

We are discussing it without adding in 'because magic' since if we do that we can just say that the spell mentions nothing about making sound and therefore stop there - no need to go further. This is because there are other spells that specifically mention that they make sound, so we can easily extrapolate that the lack of this mention means the spell does not make (exceptional) sound. Why does it not make (exceptional) sound even though described as 'booming'? Because magic.

This all started because people objected to 'booming' energy as not making a sound and therefore not being realistic. The answer is indeed almost certainly 'because magic', however, I was also making a point that it could be explained with physics, in which case you need an actual sheath around the energy for it to stay there, etc.

In any case, it makes no difference how the energy stays in place - we only need to know that it does. Whether the energy is the sheath, or there is a sheath for the energy, it nevertheless is staying with the target.



It sounds like you're saying that only the targets of spells can perceive their sensory effects (the energy of a firebolt only affects the target, so only the target can perceive its light, heat, and sound?). I'm sorry, but that's absolutely batty.

I used the word 'appreciable' for a reason.

My posts are just a non-magic-reason for why it may be with Booming Blade, despite the adjective 'booming'; the energy is held and focused inwards on the target (it is 'sheathed') - any outwards leak (if occurs at all) being non-exceptional for the purpose of making noise.

[Nifft]

However, once you get to 5th level and beyond the initial hit gets additional thunder damage, and at that point BB is just objectively superior to a single melee attack.

... unless of course you actually count the opportunity cost.

Attacking with Booming Blade bonus damage is not objectively superior to attacking with +2 Dex -> +1 to hit and +1 damage, and staying alive longer thanks to +1 AC.

It can be good, but it's not objectively superior, and it's not overwhelmingly good.

[Ganymede]

My posts are just a non-magic-reason for why it may be with Booming Blade, despite the adjective 'booming'; the energy is held and focused inwards on the target (it is 'sheathed') - any outwards leak (if occurs at all) being non-exceptional for the purpose of making noise.

Yeah, I know, but sheathes within sheathes just comes off as contrived.

[Aimeryan]

Yeah, I know, but sheathes within sheathes just comes off as contrived.

Eh, onions have layers, maybe Booming Blade cantrips are like onions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJQmVZSAqlc).