How will excluding all material from SCAG impact my game?

[HappyDaze]

Like the title says, I'm considering outright banning everything in SCAG from my home game. I think the book is filled with bad ideas (or badly executed ideas) and rather than go through and yes/no them individually, I'm thinking it best if I just remove the book from acceptable sources. However, I'm wondering if there's anything really important that this might impact.

Here are things I definitely want gone (losing them is a feature in my eyes):

Ghostwise Halflings
Half-Elf Variants
Tiefling Variants (I will allow the variants from MToF)
Path of the Battlerager (and spiked armor)
Bladesinging
Sorcerere/Warlock/Wizard Cantrips (particularly Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade)



Here are things I think I'll miss:

Nothing I can think of yet...


So, while I'm asking my own players for feedback, I'd like to gather some here too.

[Misterwhisper]

Like the title says, I'm considering outright banning everything in SCAG from my home game. I think the book is filled with bad ideas (or badly executed ideas) and rather than go through and yes/no them individually, which is sure to I'm thinking it best if I just remove the book from acceptable sources. However, I'm wondering if there's anything really important that this might impact.

Here are things I definitely want gone (losing them is a feature in my eyes):

Ghostwise Halflings
Half-Elf Variants
Tiefling Variants (I will allow the variants from MToF)
Path of the Battlerager (and spiked armor)
Bladesinging
Sorcerere/Warlock/Wizard Cantrips (particularly Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade)



Here are things I think I'll miss:

Nothing I can think of yet...


So, while I'm asking my own players for feedback, I'd like to gather some here too.

The cantrips being gone makes certain builds less powerful but not by a lot.

Other than that, no big deal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Like the title says, I'm considering outright banning everything in SCAG from my home game. I think the book is filled with bad ideas (or badly executed ideas) and rather than go through and yes/no them individually, which is sure to I'm thinking it best if I just remove the book from acceptable sources. However, I'm wondering if there's anything really important that this might impact.

Here are things I definitely want gone (losing them is a feature in my eyes):

Ghostwise Halflings
Half-Elf Variants
Tiefling Variants (I will allow the variants from MToF)
Path of the Battlerager (and spiked armor)
Bladesinging
Sorcerere/Warlock/Wizard Cantrips (particularly Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade)



Here are things I think I'll miss:

Nothing I can think of yet...


So, while I'm asking my own players for feedback, I'd like to gather some here too.

The only things that come up frequently are the cantrips, and that merely penalizes a few already-strong builds. I haven't had anyone using that material in my games (despite being allowed) and nothing important was missed.

[MaxWilson]

Here are things I think I'll miss:

Nothing I can think of yet...


So, while I'm asking my own players for feedback, I'd like to gather some here too.

Sounds like you know exactly what you're doing. It's possible that players might ask for the Long Death Monk or the Sun Soul monk back, but even if that happens you can just rule on a case-by-case basis based on how much those monk classes offend you.

Obviously the absence of SCAG cantrips will affect EKs and make War Magic mostly pointless again, but you're obviously doing it on purpose so go for it.

-Max

[HappyDaze]

Sounds like you know exactly what you're doing. It's possible that players might ask for the Long Death Monk or the Sun Soul monk back, but even if that happens you can just rule on a case-by-case basis based on how much those monk classes offend you.

Obviously the absence of SCAG cantrips will affect EKs and make War Magic mostly pointless again, but you're obviously doing it on purpose so go for it.

-Max

Sun Soul Monks are still available through XGtE, as are the Swashbuckler and Mastermind Rogue options.

[MaxWilson]

Sun Soul Monks are still available through XGtE, as are the Swashbuckler and Mastermind Rogue options.

Oh, thanks. I knew about the Swashbuckler and Rogue (though the Xanathar's Swashbuckler is slightly weaker than the SCAG one), but I overlooked the Sun Soul reprint.

[Ganymede]

It won't.

Anything good in SCAG was reprinted in Xanathar's. The rest of the content is poorly tuned and forgettable.

[ad_hoc]

Arcana Clerics are cool.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Here are things I definitely want gone (losing them is a feature in my eyes):

Ghostwise Halflings
Half-Elf Variants
Tiefling Variants (I will allow the variants from MToF)
Path of the Battlerager (and spiked armor)
Bladesinging
Sorcerere/Warlock/Wizard Cantrips (particularly Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade)


So... pretty much the entire book, then.

[Misterwhisper]

Arcana Clerics are cool.

Very much so.

[pdegan2814]

Oh, thanks. I knew about the Swashbuckler and Rogue (though the Xanathar's Swashbuckler is slightly weaker than the SCAG one), but I overlooked the Sun Soul reprint.

The Swashbuckler is the same in both books. The wording is slightly different, but the actual abilities are identical. The only potential difference is from access to other things outside the actual class description, such as the SCAG cantrips.

[Clone]

While I have no comment on the races (as you did say MToF Tieflings were fair game) what is your issue with the other mentioned content?
From both a player and DM perspective I've loved the Cantrips and the Bladesinger Wizard, providing an option which isn't otherwise possible to the classes that gain them.

[MaxWilson]

The Swashbuckler is the same in both books. The wording is slightly different, but the actual abilities are identical. The only potential difference is from access to other things outside the actual class description, such as the SCAG cantrips.

No, the SCAG Swashbuckler can use Sneak Attack on an enemy at range thanks to (IIRC) Panache Rakish Audacity, as long as there aren't any enemies next to the Swashbuckler. The Xanathar's Swashbuckler can only do it to enemies within 5', i.e. melee.

Ergo, SCAG Swashbucklers make better archers.

[Naanomi]

You lose Undying Warlocks as well... and a few Barbarian Totem options

[Beechgnome]

Yeah most of the subclasses in the book don't really work. Others you missed (but probably won't miss) are the Undying Warlock, Banneret Fighter, Oath of Crown paladin and Arcana Cleric, the last of which I kind of like save for their terrible spell list. Storm sorcerer was there too but made it into XGtE.

Other things of note: the additional barbarian totems (elk, tiger) and all of the listed backgrounds, like faction agent and far traveller.

[HappyDaze]

While I have no comment on the races (as you did say MToF Tieflings were fair game) what is your issue with the other mentioned content?
From both a player and DM perspective I've loved the Cantrips and the Bladesinger Wizard, providing an option which isn't otherwise possible to the classes that gain them.

My main issue with the Cantrips are the tendencies of min-max players using either a feat or High Elf (or variant Half-Elf) to put Booming Blade on anything that doesn't get extra attacks. In particular, every damn Swashbuckler I've seen claims to "need" this Cantrip and I just don't like the feel of it. As for Bladesinging, I've thought it was stupid since I saw it in 2e, and I'm never going to like it.

[HappyDaze]

So... pretty much the entire book, then.

That's what I'm thinking, yes.

[HappyDaze]

Yeah most of the subclasses in the book don't really work. Others you missed (but probably won't miss) are the Undying Warlock, Banneret Fighter, Oath of Crown paladin and Arcana Cleric, the last of which I kind of like save for their terrible spell list. Storm sorcerer was there too but made it into XGtE.

Other things of note: the additional barbarian totems (elk, tiger) and all of the listed backgrounds, like faction agent and far traveller.

The ones that I "missed" are just ones that don't matter to me one way or the other. I don't really think I'll miss them, and I'm waiting to see if anyone can make a good argument for what they actually add to a game.

I do kinda like the Elk totem for representing plains-dwelling horse tribes, but I've never seen anyone interested in playing them.

[HappyDaze]

No, the SCAG Swashbuckler can use Sneak Attack on an enemy at range thanks to (IIRC) Panache Rakish Audacity, as long as there aren't any enemies next to the Swashbuckler. The Xanathar's Swashbuckler can only do it to enemies within 5', i.e. melee.

Ergo, SCAG Swashbucklers make better archers.

I consider not having Swashbucklers be better archers to be a feature, and I've always used the Xanathar's version.

[MaxWilson]

My main issue with the Cantrips are the tendencies of min-max players using either a feat or High Elf (or variant Half-Elf) to put Booming Blade on anything that doesn't get extra attacks. In particular, every damn Swashbuckler I've seen claims to "need" this Cantrip and I just don't like the feel of it. As for Bladesinging, I've thought it was stupid since I saw it in 2e, and I'm never going to like it.

Also, Booming Blade is a stupid name. What in the world is "booming energy" supposed to be?


I consider not having Swashbucklers be better archers to be a feature, and I've always used the Xanathar's version.

That's fine. I was just responding to someone who didn't know that SCAG and Xanathars versions are different.

[chando]

Other than what others have said, from a another perspective: You will lose some magic in your world, or at least in the group, in the form of arcane magic. Without the cantrips, non-Blade warlock gish, paladins and rogues with warcaster and being elves/magic initiate/arcane trickster migth become less apealing in comparasion with the past. EK/AT become less powerful options, with EK 7th level ability becoming quite less useful, especially after 11th level where the cantrips could keep the feature relevant (but hey, they still got spells while other subclasses get mosly minor stuff around this level as well). On the other hand, that might increase the number o Knigths, Samurais, Swashbuckler, Thiefs and Masterminds, and that might as well be the 'vibe' you are looking for in your game. No bladesinger the complement AT/EK, no Arcana Cleric to represent a god of magic or some form of mystic theurge.
All those options blur the line between arcane classes and other classes roles, in both ways, meaning that magic is more acessible and a few archetypes become impossible without multiclassing.

The additional barbariam totems are really cool, and while some options might seem better than originals i think is a much more matter of perspective and is good to be careful to no fall victim of the "martials cant get nice things", but yeah, its mostly a few options.

You and your players lose the ability to explore a few of those options, but if you guys are ok with the world/game like that, go for it.

[HappyDaze]

Other than what others have said, from a another perspective: You will lose some magic in your world, or at least in the group, in the form of arcane magic.
Do you feel that those Cantrips alone make the classes you mention appealing? Could such characters not take another angle? If the only "effective" way those characters can be built is with those options, then they stop looking like options and become requirements (similar to Eldritch Blast for Warlocks). That's something I don't like.

[MaxWilson]

Do you feel that those Cantrips alone make the classes you mention appealing? Could such characters not take another angle? If the only "effective" way those characters can be built is with those options, then they stop looking like options and become requirements (similar to Eldritch Blast for Warlocks). That's something I don't like.

EKs are still appealing without SCAG cantrips, but their 7th level War Magic feature feels like a dead level.

[Pex]

You don't need our permission not to like something. I have no issue with Booming Blade, for example, but if you do then you do. Over my years of playing the number of players who have taken that spell is two, so however good it is it is not universally loved everyone takes it for the PWER! to win D&D as you think of it.

I happened to take it for a one shot game I'll be playing to use with War Caster for opportunity attacks. I'll be using my normal attacks on my turn. I took it just for the fun of having the combo because I find it a cool game mechanic to use for the joy of using it. I don't need your permission either.

[BarneyBent]

No, the SCAG Swashbuckler can use Sneak Attack on an enemy at range thanks to (IIRC) Panache Rakish Audacity, as long as there aren't any enemies next to the Swashbuckler. The Xanathar's Swashbuckler can only do it to enemies within 5', i.e. melee.

Ergo, SCAG Swashbucklers make better archers.

My copy of SCAG says:

“In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.”

Your target needs to be within 5 feet of you.

[MaxWilson]

My copy of SCAG says:

“In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.”

Your target needs to be within 5 feet of you.

It says no such thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Arcana Clerics are cool. yes they are

[BarneyBent]

It says no such thing.

Ugh this is going to descend into a stupid RAW debate isn’t it?

The heavy implication of that sentence is that you have no creatures within 5 feet EXCEPT your enemy, who is.

Yes, you could interpret it to mean that you only need no other creatures around you, and that your enemy just doesn’t count for that and can be anywhere. But that would require wilfully ignoring all of the contextual information relating to the sub-class’s archetype, as well as the pragmatics of the sentence.

It’s clearly not the intent (as evidenced by it being fixed in XGTE along with the sneak attack at disadvantage thing), nor is it the meaning when you take a pragmatic approach to interpreting the sentence.

If I was DM I’d never allow it.

[Capac Amaru]

It says no such thing.

I agree?


"In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you."

'Other than your target' is a rider on 'no creature'. It could also be written 'no creature (other than your target)' and mean the same thing, although be less ambiguous.

If it was intended to only work in melee, it should read "In addition, you don't need advantage on your melee attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.

[MaxWilson]

I agree?

"In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you."

'Other than your target' is a rider on 'no creature'. It could also be written 'no creature (other than your target)' and mean the same thing, although be less ambiguous.

If it was intended to only work in melee, it should read "In addition, you don't need advantage on your melee attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.

Agreed. WotC knows how to write a Swashbuckler that only gets Sneak Attack at melee range, because they did it in Xanathar's.


You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don’t need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

In this case, they didn't, nor have they changed the wording in later printings of SCAG. They're obviously quite content with having two slightly different versions of the Swashbuckler out there.

[Ganymede]

{Scrubbed}

[RSP]

Do you feel that those Cantrips alone make the classes you mention appealing? Could such characters not take another angle? If the only "effective" way those characters can be built is with those options, then they stop looking like options and become requirements (similar to Eldritch Blast for Warlocks). That's something I don't like.


EKs are still appealing without SCAG cantrips, but their 7th level War Magic feature feels like a dead level.

The game worked fine before SCAG was printed, so removing it won’t do anything other than remove options for your Players, which it seems is your intent, though, by the above, it looks like you’re saying “Players only play certain characters if they have SCAG options, therefore I’m taking away the SCAG options to prevent them from playing certain characters.”

Doesn’t that same argument apply to something like Fireball? It’s the best damage option for its level, making it seem like a requirement instead of an option for anyone who wants to do damage with a 3rd level spell. Should you not then take away Fireball, using the same logic used to exclude SCAG?

If the certain characters=optimizing, SCAG isn’t required for that. Your players will just choose the (way more) optimized choices from other books. There are way better optimized options than a Rogue with Booming Blade.

[Droodicus]

Why no love for the battlerager

[Misterwhisper]

I think it's the spiked armor requirement to be able to use half your subclass abilities.

That and the fact it is not that great of armor, and there is zero chance you ever find a magic version.

They should have just added in armor spikes as a weapon that you can strap on as part of the subclass or have it attached to another set of armor, but if they did that they would have to make sure other classes couldn't get proficiency.

Then again with the idiocy of the double scimitar created as precedence, might as well make armor spikes a weapon.

[lunaticfringe]

I think it's the spiked armor requirement to be able to use half your subclass abilities.

Eh I like it, my buddy played one in our Vigilantes of Waterdeep game (Mystery Men in a D&D world). He was a gnome who called himself The Prick.

Martials(-Monk) require weapons & armor, wizards require a spell book, all Casters require Components/Focus. Probably sucks in AL, but it's just armor with spikes. Not hard to imagine a halfplate or magic version.

[Misterwhisper]

Eh I like it, my buddy played one in our Vigilantes of Waterdeep game (Mystery Men in a D&D world). He was a gnome who called himself The Prick.

Martials(-Monk) require weapons & armor, wizards require a spell book, all Casters require Components/Focus. Probably sucks in AL, but it's just armor with spikes. Not hard to imagine a halfplate or magic version.

Yeah if a DM adds it as an item option it is great.
If they use all random rolls for items on lists, you are out of luck.

I played one anyway though, a mountain dwarf who carried a battleaxe and two handed it when fighting unless he needed to grapple, which was a lot thanks to the Brawny feat combined with Rage.
Then he would pin someone down and with one hand and beat them to death with the axe one handed.

[HappyDaze]

The game worked fine before SCAG was printed, so removing it won’t do anything other than remove options for your Players, which it seems is your intent, though, by the above, it looks like you’re saying “Players only play certain characters if they have SCAG options, therefore I’m taking away the SCAG options to prevent them from playing certain characters.”

Doesn’t that same argument apply to something like Fireball? It’s the best damage option for its level, making it seem like a requirement instead of an option for anyone who wants to do damage with a 3rd level spell. Should you not then take away Fireball, using the same logic used to exclude SCAG?

If the certain characters=optimizing, SCAG isn’t required for that. Your players will just choose the (way more) optimized choices from other books. There are way better optimized options than a Rogue with Booming Blade.

I've not had a problem with characters taking Fireball (or any level 3+ spell really), but Booming Blade seems to be a pick-up by all sorts of non-spellcasters lacking Extra Attack that want a one-step dip to massively improve their melee damage output. You experiences with it may vary, but the fact that casting stat has absolutely no impact on Booming Blade makes it ripe for this kind of (ab)use.

[Naanomi]

Battlerager ends up with a lot of competition for their bonus action as well

[n00b]

How much impact will allowing SCAG content impact your game? Will it really be that big of a deal? I don't really think anything there is all that game-breaking. I mean, what's wrong with allowing someone to pick something that might be fun and/or interesting?

[FringeJacket]

I predict that without an accurate guide adventurers will abandon the sword coast for the more we’ll known battle axe peninsula

[lunaticfringe]

Battlerager ends up with a lot of competition for their bonus action as well

Bonus Action Dash & Bonus Action Attack are money. I don't get people claiming it's some sort of downside. It's more options. First turn: Rage, Subsequent Turns: Attack if in reach of enemies, Dash if not.

[Naanomi]

Bonus Action Dash & Bonus Action Attack are money. I don't get people claiming it's some sort of downside. It's more options. First turn: Rage, Subsequent Turns: Attack if in reach of enemies, Dash if not.
It’s not a downside, but if I had the choice between abilities I can use the same turn I rage and those I cannot... I know which I’d prefer other things being equal

[RSP]

I've not had a problem with characters taking Fireball (or any level 3+ spell really), but Booming Blade seems to be a pick-up by all sorts of non-spellcasters lacking Extra Attack that want a one-step dip to massively improve their melee damage output. You experiences with it may vary, but the fact that casting stat has absolutely no impact on Booming Blade makes it ripe for this kind of (ab)use.

First off, I think we very much disagree on what massively improved melee damage is. Levels 5-10 BB adds ~4.5; 11-16 it adds ~9.

Now, “Non-spellcasters lacking extra attack,” are we just talking about non-AT Rogues?

I guess they’re all Swashbucklers, using their BA to Disengage and move away after BBing and SAing a single enemy with no one else around, causing the target to have to move or waste their turn if they have no ranges capabilities? This strategy isn’t that effective and is very easy to counter with any number of encounters.

Or is this something that’s happening pre-level 5? If so, your Players are wasting resources on what is essentially the prelude of the game, and BB will see far less use level 5 on. It’s really a waste to get it at 4 with an ASI, and there are far more potent uses of Variant Human’s feat. Plus, you still only get the damage at those levels if the creature moves, which for any non-Rogue, would require eating an opportunity Attack anyway, the same attack they’d eat if they didn’t move away.

I find it hard to believe a 5e game is imbalanced by a character adding ~4.5 Thunder damage at levels 5-10, at the cost of an ASI and not Extra Attacking or using a non-disengage BA. Has no Rogue dual wielded to get a second shot at SA when the Attack Action missed? Its more effective, even at lvl 5, getting SA off for an additional ~10.5 damage vs the ~4.5 (not to mention another chance to crit, and adding the weapon damage). Has anyone tried playing a caster at your table? They’re far more effective than a Rogue using BB. A fighter? Anyone with GWM, PAM or SS? Do you allow variant human? There are way worse combos.

Not trying to insult, just trying to stress there are far worse combos than this, in terms of optimizing, so if BB gets to you, there will be lots you’ll have to ban.

I’m legit curious how many non-AT Rogues you’ve had in your games (vs any other class) that have picked up BB.

And if the BB-Disengage trick is that OP in your encounters, I’d really suggest trying different types of encounters rather than resorting to taking away abilities, as using abilities is one of the things that makes 5e fun for players.

[Misterwhisper]

I've not had a problem with characters taking Fireball (or any level 3+ spell really), but Booming Blade seems to be a pick-up by all sorts of non-spellcasters lacking Extra Attack that want a one-step dip to massively improve their melee damage output. You experiences with it may vary, but the fact that casting stat has absolutely no impact on Booming Blade makes it ripe for this kind of (ab)use.

How is that any different from so many people taking warlock 2 on any cha character due to cantrips scaling with class and not caster level?

The reason it seems so powerful is because only casters get a scaling power that scales even if not in that class.

[BarneyBent]

Agreed. WotC knows how to write a Swashbuckler that only gets Sneak Attack at melee range, because they did it in Xanathar's.



In this case, they didn't, nor have they changed the wording in later printings of SCAG. They're obviously quite content with having two slightly different versions of the Swashbuckler out there.

Except that JC has already stated that Xanathars was used to fix the wording if SCAG Swashbuckler to remove ambiguity (in this case, regarding sneak attacking with disadvantage).

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/901116846207713281?lang=en

Unless there’s another SCAG errata I’ve missed (entirely possible), that argument falls apart because it suggests Xanathars IS the SCAG errata for SCAG content that changed between the two books.

The way I read it, and which I believe is the simplest reading, you can only use RA sneak attack when your enemy and no other creatures are within 5 feet.

Yes, applying formal logic or strict semantics to the statement, it doesn’t mean that. But applying linguistic pragmatics and common sense, it does, and given that JC said Xanathars corrects Swashbuckler in another capacity as well, it’s fair to assume this is the intended use.

Could a DM let it slide on a technicality? Sure. But it’s far from a clear endorsement of ranged swashbucklers.

Also keep in mind - the text wouldn’t specify “melee attack” because that would disqualify crossbow experts from using ranged attacks within 5 feet, and rogues are probably the most likely to use that feat.

[elfinboy]

My main issue with the Cantrips are the tendencies of min-max players using either a feat or High Elf (or variant Half-Elf) to put Booming Blade on anything that doesn't get extra attacks. In particular, every damn Swashbuckler I've seen claims to "need" this Cantrip and I just don't like the feel of it. As for Bladesinging, I've thought it was stupid since I saw it in 2e, and I'm never going to like it.

I play a bladesinger and i think its one of the funnest subclasses i've ever played

Also i've never seen a swashbuckler that even had booming blade and i don't think it is that big of a problem

remember there's a good chance that one of your players will want to use it for their background or backstory

[Vexacia]

this just feels like you have an unreasonably personal grudge against gish players. nothing in SCAG is overpowered besides winged tiefling.

[HappyDaze]

this just feels like you have an unreasonably personal grudge against gish players. nothing in SCAG is overpowered besides winged tiefling.

I don't have a grudge against any of my players. OK, I'm a little irritated in one game where everyone took Int 8 as a dump, but that's a bit different. Some of my feelings--like despising Bladesinging--have existed since long before I even gamed with my current group. I certainly may have a distaste for what you call gish (such a stupid word) characters, but most of that in 5e comes from abusing the multi-classing rules (which I'm strongly considering banning for this game too).

[Laserlight]

Rather than ask us, consult with your players and see if they have strong feelings about it.

FWIW, in our party of half elves, I (tempest cleric) and the AT rogue have BB. It was very nice up to L4, but neither of us have used it much since L5; I'm casting, he's generally staying at range. And in fights we expect to be dangerous, we've been dropping Silence anyway.
I've never seen anyone use GFB.

[MaxWilson]

How is that any different from so many people taking warlock 2 on any cha character due to cantrips scaling with class and not caster level?

The reason it seems so powerful is because only casters get a scaling power that scales even if not in that class.

Maybe it's not powerful, just annoying.

I definitely understand the OP's concern. When a Forge 1/Wizard X has AC and melee damage almost as good as a vanilla fighter AND full spellcasting, the incentives point toward lots of wizards and very few non-Sharpshooter/GWM fighters, which could be annoyingly samey.

[MaxWilson]

Except that JC has already stated that Xanathars was used to fix the wording if SCAG Swashbuckler to remove ambiguity (in this case, regarding sneak attacking with disadvantage).

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/901116846207713281?lang=en

"To remove ambiguity?" That's not what that tweet says. Clearly they didn't think about ranged attacks and accidentally wrote unintended rules. In Xanathar they wrote different rules. It's not an editing error--it's clearly a design error. Crawford's tweet doesn't say otherwise.



Unless there’s another SCAG errata I’ve missed (entirely possible), that argument falls apart because it suggests Xanathars IS the SCAG errata for SCAG content that changed between the two books.

That's not what "errata" means. Errata are lists of errors in the text, corrected in future printings.

E.g. Xanathars Storm Sorcerer is not "errata" for the UA Storm Sorcerer. It's a different design. WotC learned from one attempt and tried again. They are not the same subclass. Neither are the SCAG vs. Xanathars Swashbuckler.

You may *like* one of them better but they both exist. That's all I'm saying. Review the thread history: I'm just saying there's more than one.

[HappyDaze]

You may *like* one of them better but they both exist. That's all I'm saying. Review the thread history: I'm just saying there's more than one.
I go for the Highlander Rule here: There can be only one (version of a particular thing). I consider the newer source to replace the older source. Xanathar's is newer, so that's the only Swashbuckler, Mastermind, Sun Soul, and Storm Sorcerer that are relevant in my eyes.

[OvisCaedo]

I go for the Highlander Rule here: There can be only one (version of a particular thing). I consider the newer source to replace the older source. Xanathar's is newer, so that's the only Swashbuckler, Mastermind, Sun Soul, and Storm Sorcerer that are relevant in my eyes.

This issue with this is that the official Wizards stance doesn't quite match; or, rather, their own "highlander" rule sort of makes this one incompatible. Their organized AL play rules are pretty clear about only allowing one extra book for your character, and Xanathar's didn't actually completely replace everything in SCAG's, because of their deliberate exclusions.

Go ahead and make the reasonable ruling as a home DM, no disagreement there, but if Wizards are going to keep making the splatbooks exclusive from each other for their official play rules, they DO sort of have an obligation to actually errata all of their officially recognized options instead of saying "nah it's fine it's worded differently in the book you AREN'T using"

[sigfile]

Ever since swordmages were a thing, I thought Booming Blade was problematic. Not because of the damage, but rather the damage type.

It's loud. The exact opposite of what most rogues would want. Hell, unless your goal is to alert the entire dungeon/temple/whatever to your presence, triggering sonic booms every few seconds is a really, really terrible idea.

To the original question, how will removing the SCAG impact your home game? It probably won't. Players might be sad. Like others, I'd encourage talking to them - just because you hate something (Bladesingers) doesn't mean your players aren't itching to play one. You can always carve out the elements that you as a DM find problematic (SCAG cantrips) while leaving room for the players to try out elements you'd ignore if you were a player.

[HappyDaze]

Hell, unless your goal is to alert the entire dungeon/temple/whatever to your presence, triggering sonic booms every few seconds is a really, really terrible idea.
Triggering sonic booms every few seconds is pretty much exactly what I'd expect from a master of Guile.

[Trustypeaches]

I've not had a problem with characters taking Fireball (or any level 3+ spell really), but Booming Blade seems to be a pick-up by all sorts of non-spellcasters lacking Extra Attack that want a one-step dip to massively improve their melee damage output. You experiences with it may vary, but the fact that casting stat has absolutely no impact on Booming Blade makes it ripe for this kind of (ab)use.
Isn’t Rogue the only non-caster without extra attack who benefits from Booming Blade? And only Melee rogues at that, who are already hopelessly outclassed by ranged rogues even with SCAG cantrips.

With the cantrips, Rogues don’t outperform other melee classes in damage output unless they can consistently get the riders off. And keep in mind the using Booming Blade means a melee Rogue gives up their off-Hand attack (second chance at sneak attack) which hurts their DPR and offsets the cantrip’s damage boost.

So in order to address ONE build that is hardly within the realm of “optimized” and is outclassed by even other rogues, you remove the SCAG cantrips for EVERYONE?

I just don’t get it.

[Trustypeaches]

Triggering sonic booms every few seconds is pretty much exactly what I'd expect from a master of Guile.
lIt's loud. The exact opposite of what most rogues would want. Hell, unless your goal is to alert the entire dungeon/temple/whatever to your presence, triggering sonic booms every few seconds is a really, really terrible ideaThunder Damage isn’t specifically loud: at least not any louder than the general chaos of combat or any other spell with a vocal component.

5E is pretty explicit when a spell produces sound of appreciable volume / range: Thunderous Smite, Thunderclap, Thunder Wave.

Booming Blade lacks this distinction, as does Shatter, Destructive Wave, and Chromatic Orb.

If you houserule any of these spells to produce more sound than that, then that’s a pretty unnecessary nerf.

[HappyDaze]

Thunder Damage isn’t specifically loud: at least not any louder than the general chaos of combat or any other spell with a vocal component.

5E is pretty explicit when a spell produces sound of appreciable volume / range: Thunderous Smite, Thunderclap, Thunder Wave.

Booming Blade lacks this distinction, as does Shatter, Destructive Wave, and Chromatic Orb.

If you houserule any of these spells to produce more sound than that, then that’s a pretty unnecessary nerf.

I assume anything with Thunder damage is loud just as anything with Fire damage is hot, anything with Radiant damage is bright, and anything with Piercing or Slashing damage is bloody. That hardly nerfs them.

You also seem to have failed the SF reference.

[lunaticfringe]

I assume anything with Thunder damage is loud just as anything with Fire damage is hot, anything with Radiant damage is bright, and anything with Piercing or Slashing damage is bloody. That hardly nerfs them.

You also seem to have failed the SF reference.

Thunder is Sonic damage with a more genre appropriate name. It's just vibrations and sometimes these vibrations can't be heard by humanoid ears. Popular idea in fiction is that these vibrations can be used to shake things apart or cause internal hemorrhaging without making everyone nearby deaf AF.

Do with that what you will.

[Ganymede]

Thunder Damage isn’t specifically loud: at least not any louder than the general chaos of combat or any other spell with a vocal component.

5E is pretty explicit when a spell produces sound of appreciable volume / range: Thunderous Smite, Thunderclap, Thunder Wave.

Booming Blade lacks this distinction, as does Shatter, Destructive Wave, and Chromatic Orb.

If you houserule any of these spells to produce more sound than that, then that’s a pretty unnecessary nerf.

Those are not house rules. They are a DM doing his or her job: making judgment calls on situations that are not covered by the D&D ruleset.

For example, if a DM determines that a prolonged fire in an enclosed space entails a risk of asphyxiation, he or she isn't making up house rules that deviate from RAW; he or she is making a judgment call.


What you're doing here is basically saying that loud conversations can't be easier to hear than normal conversations because loud conversations are not specifically called out in the rules to be louder.

[lunaticfringe]

I mean they reprinted Deep Gnomes 3 times...

...and they will keep reprinting them until you unwashed masses of uncultured swine accept that they are the master race. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

[Sharur]

EKs are still appealing without SCAG cantrips, but their 7th level War Magic feature feels like a dead level.

I don't think War Magic without SCAG is underpowered at all; its still useful, just not so broken. Let's consider removing Greenflame Blade: You can still make a melee spell attack (if you so wish), just use Shocking Grasp; you can still target two creatures, just use acid splash (albeit it targets Dex, not AC). You just don't get to do extra cantrip scaling damage and still get any bonuses on your weapon.

I, like the OP, also don't like the SCAG cantrips, because they are so much more powerful than the other cantrips: Green-flame Blade allows you to take advantage of weapon enhancements and fighting styles, which no PHB cantrip allows you to do, and then on top of that, allows you to damage an adjacent enemy (with no save!) for hitting the person next to them. You can hurt the armored paladin by striking the unarmored wizard next to them. Booming Blade also allows a weapon attack, and the deals damage to a moving foe, like an attack of opportunity, but is objectively better: no attack roll, doesn't take your reaction, and bypasses things like Disengage, Teleportation and the Mobile Feat. Lightning Lure is still better than Thorn Whip, but the difference is less.

[Sharur]

...and they will keep reprinting them until you unwashed masses of uncultured swine accept that they are the master race. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Nooooooooooooooo! Nooooooooooo! (Falls into industrial abyss).

[Trustypeaches]

Lightning Lure is still better than Thorn Whip, but the difference is less.Okay you lost me

How is the 15 ft range pull with a save better?

[HappyDaze]

Thunder is Sonic damage with a more genre appropriate name. It's just vibrations and sometimes these vibrations can't be heard by humanoid ears. Popular idea in fiction is that these vibrations can be used to shake things apart or cause internal hemorrhaging without making everyone nearby deaf AF.

Do with that what you will.

The name of the spell has "Booming" in it. Since we're not talking about economics, this is the definition of booming: "(of a sound or voice) loud, deep, and resonant."

[Laserlight]

The name of the spell has "Booming" in it. Since we're not talking about economics, this is the definition of booming: "(of a sound or voice) loud, deep, and resonant."

There was a lengthy thread on this, with one camp saying "the rules explicitly specify how far away Thunderclap, Thinderwave, Thunderthis and Thunderthat can be heard, but BB doesn't say a word about it, so we have to assume BB isn't any noisier than normal fighting and casting", and the other camp said "we ain't gotta assume nothing, so even though the rules don't say so, it's really really loud!", and a minor camp of "oh yeah? Since the rules don't say anything about it, WE're going to assume it's silent except to the victim, so there!"

Of course, if I were a rogue with BB and you went with the "it's really loud!" interpretation, I'd say "That's great! The ones I'm fighting will be a bit deafened by the boom and it'll be harder for them to hear me when I'm sneaking!"

Not that BB is really good for most rogue, for the reasons mentioned in a previous post...unless your rogue is trying to add a dash of Controller to his repertoire.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think War Magic without SCAG is underpowered at all; its still useful, just not so broken. Let's consider removing Greenflame Blade: You can still make a melee spell attack (if you so wish), just use Shocking Grasp; you can still target two creatures, just use acid splash (albeit it targets Dex, not AC). You just don't get to do extra cantrip scaling damage and still get any bonuses on your weapon.

I can tell you that when SCAG came out, my first reaction was, "Oh, I see, they finally justified the existence of War Magic." Cantrips like Acid Splash/Shocking Grasp are really marginal for War Magic scenarios; Thunderclap or Sword Burst or (if you've got it) Word of Radiance is actually pretty good in some scenarios, but those cantrips didn't exist yet either before SCAG.


I, like the OP, also don't like the SCAG cantrips, because they are so much more powerful than the other cantrips: Green-flame Blade allows you to take advantage of weapon enhancements and fighting styles, which no PHB cantrip allows you to do, and then on top of that, allows you to damage an adjacent enemy (with no save!) for hitting the person next to them. You can hurt the armored paladin by striking the unarmored wizard next to them. Booming Blade also allows a weapon attack, and the deals damage to a moving foe, like an attack of opportunity, but is objectively better: no attack roll, doesn't take your reaction, and bypasses things like Disengage, Teleportation and the Mobile Feat. Lightning Lure is still better than Thorn Whip, but the difference is less.

As I said above, I can sympathize with people not liking the SCAG cantrips. They do funny things to the game (not least when it comes to Paladorcs and Quickened Greenflame Blade + Divine Smite combo). But if you remove them, I can also sympathize with people not liking Eldritch Knights at levels 7-10.

I'm not saying the OP shouldn't remove them. (It's no skin off my nose either way.) I'm just pointing out one of the consequences of removing them, which is what the OP started this thread for.

[HappyDaze]

I'm not saying the OP shouldn't remove them. (It's no skin off my nose either way.) I'm just pointing out one of the consequences of removing them, which is what the OP started this thread for.
And I appreciate it. I enjoy the objective review of the consequences much more than those that just say "don't do it" or "but why?" when that's not what I'm looking for at all.

[lunaticfringe]

The name of the spell has "Booming" in it. Since we're not talking about economics, this is the definition of booming: "(of a sound or voice) loud, deep, and resonant."

And Detect Evil & Good doesn't detect alignment at all. And the Definition of a rogue is:

a dishonest or unprincipled man.

But I dont see anyone banning female members of the class.

[Ganymede]

There was a lengthy thread on this, with one camp saying "the rules explicitly specify how far away Thunderclap, Thinderwave, Thunderthis and Thunderthat can be heard, but BB doesn't say a word about it, so we have to assume BB isn't any noisier than normal fighting and casting", and the other camp said "we ain't gotta assume nothing, so even though the rules don't say so, it's really really loud!", and a minor camp of "oh yeah? Since the rules don't say anything about it, WE're going to assume it's silent except to the victim, so there!"


There was a fourth camp, but it was just me saying, in all caps, "ASK YOUR DM."


And Detect Evil & Good doesn't detect alignment at all. And the Definition of a rogue is:

a dishonest or unprincipled man.

But I dont see anyone banning female members of the class.

The other poster was talking about using contextual clues in order to help inform a DM ruling.

Your post didn't really address that. It danced around that issue in order to instead suggest that taking things to literal extremes is bad. I mean, sure, that's bad, but it isn't an on-point response to the other poster's implication.

[Nokrud]

Triggering sonic booms every few seconds is pretty much exactly what I'd expect from a master of Guile.

Oh man I haven't even gotten to the end of this thread but need to tell you "Well played, sir" But "Are you man enough to fight with me?" ...


Anyway about your topic since it amused me. I personally think removing SCAG would do very little unless you are playing in Faerun then at least it adds the flavorful bladesinger and battlerager. Slightly nerfs AT and EK but neither is gutted so minimal effect to the game.

I would talk to your players and perhaps consider allowing the backgrounds if they were interested not that they couldn't just rebuild them of course but its probably the biggest loss aside from the race specific fun subclasses. I also personally think that AL's PHB +1 is a grand solution to stopping SCAG cantrip overuse and if that is your goal you might consider it as well.

[Pex]

Thunder Damage isn’t specifically loud: at least not any louder than the general chaos of combat or any other spell with a vocal component.

5E is pretty explicit when a spell produces sound of appreciable volume / range: Thunderous Smite, Thunderclap, Thunder Wave.

Booming Blade lacks this distinction, as does Shatter, Destructive Wave, and Chromatic Orb.

If you houserule any of these spells to produce more sound than that, then that’s a pretty unnecessary nerf.

It was asked about in another thread a month or so ago. To what distance can someone hear the sound of a Booming Blade? I repeat my answer. The distance someone can hear the sound is directly proportional to how annoyed the DM is the player uses it short of outright banning it.

[Sharur]

Okay you lost me

How is the 15 ft range pull with a save better?

The damage is more (a 1d8 rather than a 1d6), its elementally typed (*), the pull distance is the same, it doesn't have to deal with AC at all (Thorn Whip damage is based on a melee spell attack, and the strength save is a rider ), and I missed the fact the lightning lore only has a 15ft range:annoyed: That might in fact make them even...

*May or may not be a benefit

[Naanomi]

And Detect Evil & Good doesn't detect alignment at all.
Sprites do though

[Trustypeaches]

The damage is more (a 1d8 rather than a 1d6), its elementally typed (*), the pull distance is the same, it doesn't have to deal with AC at all (Thorn Whip damage is based on a melee spell attack, and the strength save is a rider ), and I missed the fact the lightning lore only has a 15ft range:annoyed: That might in fact make them even...

*May or may not be a benefitThe reduced range is sort of a killer.

It means you can’t use Lightning Lure to reposition enemies without commuting to pulling them into melee range, whereas Thorn whip can be used to pull enemies into hazards in between you and the target or away from allies without taking that risk.

Lightning damage is worse than magical piercing damage, which isn’t resisted by anything iirc.

And saves are generally worse than Attack rolls, especially strength saves which many many enemies are good at.

[Composer99]

...and they will keep reprinting them until you unwashed masses of uncultured swine accept that they are the master race. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Not gonna lie, I laughed out loud for five minutes, this was so funny.