Booming Blade being reprinted and nerfed in Tasha's [New Preview Release]

[bendking]

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=WOTC5ETCE

In image 3/6 we can see that Booming Blade's range is changed to Self (5-foot radius).
This makes it impossible to use with Warcaster and Twinned Spell. I suspect it also means it can't trigger Sneak Attack.

Personally, I think this is a horrible change to an otherwise amazing cantrip. I'm going to pretend it never happened and keep using the SCAG version.
There's also a bunch of new information in the images, such as some of the Alternate Class Features being printed, but I found this one to be the most worrying.

[Zhorn]

Can only hope it's just an error on Fantasy Ground's side and not in the official print :smallannoyed:

[CMCC]

Spell sniper is out too, right?

[diplomancer]

Looks like they fixed some of the Ranger's multiclass dip issues by assigning Canny to 1st Level (and I suppose Tireless to 10th, but we can't see it in the screenshot)

They also took out a lot of the best spells they'd added to the Bard's spell list (tiny servant, Tenser's transformation, Maze, among others)

[AttilatheYeon]

Can only hope it's just an error on Fantasy Ground's side and not in the official print :smallannoyed:

I mean DnD Beyond makes mistakes all the time.

I'm hoping it's now a melee spell attack instead of weapon attack.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I mean DnD Beyond makes mistakes all the time.

I'm hoping it's now a melee spell attack instead of weapon attack.

Seems more like they’re putting the spell in line with branding smite and similar spells.

[MaxWilson]

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=WOTC5ETCE

In image 3/6 we can see that Booming Blade's range is changed to Self (5-foot radius).
This makes it impossible to use with Warcaster and Twinned Spell. I suspect it also means it can't trigger Sneak Attack.

Personally, I think this is a horrible change to an otherwise amazing cantrip. I'm going to pretend it never happened and keep using the SCAG version.
There's also a bunch of new information in the images, such as some of the Alternate Class Features being printed, but I found this one to be the most worrying.

I'm sad that they didn't give it a less ridiculous name. "Booming", really?

[Mr Adventurer]

I'm hoping it's now a melee spell attack instead of weapon attack.

That would be a massive oof for Tricksters and EKs.

[diplomancer]

Seems more like they’re putting the spell in line with branding smite and similar spells.

Hey, that means your Steed can twin it!

[Waazraath]

Mhhh. Will have to wait to see the full final version, but if they really are going to errata stuff I can image some other stuff that could use tuning (both up and down) before Booming Blade...

[sithlordnergal]

I'm hoping they don't change Booming Blade up, its pretty perfect as it is. Its a great spell that helps out arcane tricksters and such.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm hoping they don't change Booming Blade up, its pretty perfect as it is. Its a great spell that helps out arcane tricksters and such.

It looks like it has similar wording to Steel Wind Strike now, changing "flourish" to "brandish" so I fully expect to see it become a melee spell attack.

Not thrilled about it, I know the spell is a bit unpopular for it's raw strength but I thought it was a positive inclusion despite that.

[HappyDaze]

I am willing to consider this newer version. The current version sits banned and unloved on my shelf within the crapsack that is SCAG.

[ThorOdinson]

Anybody who tells you Booming Blade wasn't OP . . .

[bendking]

Anybody who tells you Booming Blade wasn't OP . . .

It was mostly a buff for classes that needed the buff. Rogue is already one of the worst classes in the game, taking Booming Blade away from him like that is straight-up brutal.
It's not like it was OP on full-casters, which are the strongest classes in the game, so it didn't power creep the game in any way. It mostly propped-up the less powerful classes.

If anything, it made not taking Booming Blade on Rogue a sub-optimal choice, but I didn't mind it that much since Rogue is a low-tier class.
Of course, I would have preferred seeing the Rogue buffed instead of this band-aid solution, but removing the band-aid and not giving a replacement is a bad call.

[AttilatheYeon]

Seems more like they’re putting the spell in line with branding smite and similar spells.

That may be interesting. Bonus action to activate, weapon attack to trigger it.

[Amnestic]

Without reading the full text of the Booming Blade reprint I think it'd still work with Warcaster. The clipped off text mentions "within 5 feet of you. On a hit" before cutting off again. I anticipate that means that it works basically the same as it does now - pick a guy in melee and smack them.

"The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature." is Warcaster's text. Even if it's got a range of Self (5' Radius), the target of the spell is one creature, satisfying Warcaster's requirements. Maybe.

[Waazraath]

It was mostly a buff for classes that needed the buff. Rogue is already one of the worst classes in the game, taking Booming Blade away from him like that is straight-up brutal.
It's not like it was OP on full-casters, which are the strongest classes in the game, so it didn't power creep the game in any way. It mostly propped-up the less powerful classes.

If anything, it made not taking Booming Blade on Rogue a sub-optimal choice, but I didn't mind it that much since Rogue is a low-tier class.
Of course, I would have preferred seeing the Rogue buffed instead of this band-aid solution, but removing the band-aid and not giving a replacement is a bad call.

To be fair, GFB / BB together with sorcerer / quickened spell provided cha based gish builds an extra (extra powerful) attack as a bonus action, and you could make pretty damn hard hitting builds with those.

[Hael]

To be fair, GFB / BB together with sorcerer / quickened spell provided cha based gish builds an extra (extra powerful) attack as a bonus action, and you could make pretty damn hard hitting builds with those.

You could, and in practice it wasn’t that bad bc of how many resources it cost. But they’re definitely targeting tankmage builds. Apparently the shield feat was not included as well, which tells me they’re worried about the interaction with their new racial/lineage system.

[bendking]

To be fair, GFB / BB together with sorcerer / quickened spell provided cha based gish builds an extra (extra powerful) attack as a bonus action, and you could make pretty damn hard hitting builds with those.

Meh, I wouldn't really quicken a Booming Blade all that often,. That's a pretty steep cost to pay for just one attack. And Quickening a leveled spell and then Twinning Booming Blade is even more expensive.
Especially considering you can just take Paladin 6 and have an Extra Attack for free and arguably a better multiclass overall.

[AttilatheYeon]

Without reading the full text of the Booming Blade reprint I think it'd still work with Warcaster. The clipped off text mentions "within 5 feet of you. On a hit" before cutting off again. I anticipate that means that it works basically the same as it does now - pick a guy in melee and smack them.

"The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature." is Warcaster's text. Even if it's got a range of Self (5' Radius), the target of the spell is one creature, satisfying Warcaster's requirements. Maybe.

Range self (5ft) means the spell doesn't only target one creature. Which is the condition of the spell attack instead of OA.

[Waazraath]

Meh, I wouldn't really quicken a Booming Blade all that often,. That's a pretty steep cost to pay for just one attack. And Quickening a leveled spell and then Twinning Booming Blade is even more expensive.
Especially considering you can just take Paladin 6 and have an Extra Attack for free and arguably a better multiclass overall.

Or pally 6 with sorcerer (and maybe some hexblade) and have use a quickened action BB for 2 sor points to make 3 attacks, potentially combining it with GWM or Shadow Blade, or divine smites, or eldritch smites, or some of those together for really hard nova's.

[stoutstien]

Changing target to self wouldn't hurt most characters who want to use BB but it will tamp down on some of the edge cases where it did get silly.

Personally I think the only thing it needs is a save on the secondary effect and cleaner language on what movement triggers it.

[Amnestic]

Range self (5ft) means the spell doesn't only target one creature. Which is the condition of the spell attack instead of OA.

The range just tells you the range of the spell. The text tells you what it targets. We can't see the full text, but what we can see indicates - to me, at least - that the target mechanics are unchanged. That being: Attack a creature (becoming the target of the spell) so long as they are within the range specified. Primal Savagery, for instance, has a range of self. But the target of the spell takes 1d10 damage. Clearly, the caster is not the target of it, otherwise it would literally just hurt themselves. Booming Blade may work the same way.

I could be wrong, of course, but I think speaking as if its definitively removed BB from Warcaster is a mistake.

[Zhorn]

The range just tells you the range of the spell. The text tells you what it targets.
You are right in that we cannot see the full text of the spell, but I'm pretty sure the range of self does eliminate War Caster's compatibility

Warcaster
...
When a hostile creature’s movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature...
I imagine there are going to be some complicated debates on forums over the intended recipients of the spells damage vs the technically worded recipient of the spell effect, but range of 'self' sounds more like an indication of the spell is empowering the attacker, and in turn the attack they make carries the magical oomph (or BOOM if you will). Similar to mentioned earlier with the Smite spells, where the buff is placed on the caster that adds more power to their next attack.
Time will tell, but if word comes of this change being real, it'll just make more tables house ruling Booming Blade compared to now, be it those keeping the old SCAG version, making a new one, or keeping it on the ban list as a few others have already mentioned.

[Hael]

There were a few exploity tricks people did in AL play, involving spellsniper/war caster and reach weapons. I’m pretty sure that was another thing they were targeting with this errata

[cutlery]

Well, this sucks for every EK everywhere, damnit; especially those that took war caster rather than sentinel for exactly this use case.

[bendking]

Or pally 6 with sorcerer (and maybe some hexblade) and have use a quickened action BB for 2 sor points to make 3 attacks, potentially combining it with GWM or Shadow Blade, or divine smites, or eldritch smites, or some of those together for really hard nova's.

Again, 2 Sorcery Points for a single extra attack is almost never worth it in my eyes. As you said, it's a nova option, but nothing more. It's doesn't really tip the balance.


The range just tells you the range of the spell. The text tells you what it targets. We can't see the full text, but what we can see indicates - to me, at least - that the target mechanics are unchanged. That being: Attack a creature (becoming the target of the spell) so long as they are within the range specified. Primal Savagery, for instance, has a range of self. But the target of the spell takes 1d10 damage. Clearly, the caster is not the target of it, otherwise it would literally just hurt themselves. Booming Blade may work the same way.

I could be wrong, of course, but I think speaking as if its definitively removed BB from Warcaster is a mistake.

I hope you're right. If nothing else we are going to need some Sage Advice on this.

[stoutstien]

Game mechanics aside I will say the spell targeting the weapon(self) makes more sense.
It's almost like BB should be two different options. One that channels magic through the user's weapon and another one that creates a weapon for the instance of the attack. Like a single attack instantaneous flame/ shadow blade.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rogue is already one of the worst classes in the game
Nope.

taking Booming Blade away from him like that is straight-up brutal.Nope.
If you read SCAG, it's a Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer spell. OK, yeah, an Arcane trickster can take it. Our Arcane Trickster gnome doesn't have it and doesn't miss it.

It's not like it was OP on full-casters, which are the strongest classes in the game, so it didn't power creep the game in any way. On that we agree.

If anything, it made not taking Booming Blade on Rogue a sub-optimal choice, but I didn't mind it that much since Rogue is a low-tier class.
*Facepalm*
The rogue is a well designed class for adventuring, and does well in all three tiers of play.

[clash]

Honestly, I think this is a good thing. Scag cantrips have always been straight up better than competing options(weapon attack or cantrip), hopefully this brings them in line.

[Gtdead]

Why people think it doesn't work with sneak attack any more? Any specific reason?

From the picture we can see words like "brandish weapon" and "hit".
Sneak attack just requires an attack with a finesse weapon.

Warcaster and twin are probably out unless there is specific wording for these cases (which is unlikely), but not SA.

And also no, rogue doesn't need it, but it's nice on melee rogues as a risk/reward play. After all going warcaster for BB isn't such a hot pick on rogue. Enemies would rather hit him than flee. All that went away is the MI + Warcaster + Sentinel interaction which again was inefficient. Just MI+Sentinel is enough.

Also there is a thread with leaks on reddit and it seems that rogue got a new cunning action that gives advantage on the next attack which is a substantial buff in rogue's reliability.

[bendking]

Nope.
Nope.
*Facepalm*

Such well-detailed arguments. Truly, I have been blessed to be educated by your immense knowledge.
Anyway, if you had ever played in a high-op table you would have easily seen how the Rogue is utterly outclassed by some of the other classes.
Not everyone has to play high-op, but I don't think it's helpful to bring your low-op experience into a debate regarding class balance.


Why people think it doesn't work with sneak attack any more? Any specific reason?

From the picture we can see words like "brandish weapon" and "hit".
Sneak attack just requires an attack with a finesse weapon.

Warcaster and twin are probably out unless there is specific wording for these cases (which is unlikely), but not SA.

And also no, rogue doesn't need it, but it's nice on melee rogues as a risk/reward play. After all going warcaster for BB isn't such a hot pick on rogue. Enemies would rather hit him than flee. All that went away is the MI + Warcaster + Sentinel interaction which again was inefficient. Just MI+Sentinel is enough.

Also there is a thread with leaks on reddit and it seems that rogue got a new cunning action that gives advantage on the next attack which is a substantial buff in rogue's reliability.

The main draw for BB on Rogue is not Warcaster, it's having an attack with extra damage and a rider that synergizes with the Rogue's bonus action Disengage. It's straight-up better than his regular attack.
Rogue is completely outclasses by other classes in the game, so yes, I would say he needs it. Without Booming Blade working with Sneak Attack (which I am still not certain of) the Rogue is just much weaker.

[cutlery]

Anyway, if you had ever played in a high-op table you would have easily seen how the Rogue is utterly outclassed by some of the other classes.


I have. It isn't.

Are Rogues Wizards? No. Can they excel at social and investigation pillars while making a strong contribution to the combat pillar? Yes.

If you do the math, you're better off attacking with an offhand weapon for the accuracy boost and greater likelihood of landing a sneak attack. The only time a BB is always the best choice for a rogue is if they took war caster and get an OP attack; which is a niche case.

Even if you have BB available, you're often better off making a regular attack so you have the option of a bonus action offhand attack - assuming maximizing SA damage is the goal.

[stoutstien]

Such well-detailed arguments. Truly, I have been blessed to be educated by your immense knowledge.
Anyway, if you had ever played in a high-op table you would have easily seen how the Rogue is utterly outclassed by some of the other classes.
Not everyone has to play high-op, but I don't think it's helpful to bring your low-op experience into a debate regarding class balance.



The main draw for BB on Rogue is not Warcaster, it's having an attack with extra damage and a rider that synergizes with the Rogue's bonus action Disengage. It's straight-up better than his regular attack.
Rogue is completely outclasses by other classes in the game, so yes, I would say he needs it. Without Booming Blade working with Sneak Attack (which I am still not certain of) the Rogue is just much weaker.

So your entire basis of comparison is how much damage a class can do? I would argue your experience is not a highly optimized table but rather just one that focuses on one-dimensional combat that is basically a race to zero.
there's actually nothing optimized about doing damage because it's the least effective way of solving problems. There's always more meat points to deal with.

Anyways back on the main topic, this change doesn't actually affect arcane trickster that much. Getting sneak attack on reactions is still the bulk of their extra damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

Such well-detailed arguments. Truly, I have been blessed to be educated by your immense knowledge. Your unsupported, general, and overly broad statements warranted about that much effort in response. Since I don't need to point out to you that the game was not designed for power gamers, not in this edition anyway, I think we are about done. (Ah, I see that cutlery and stoutstien have offered a similar response, so I'll retire from this line of discourse).

[Tanarii]

Booming Blade could definitely stand to be toned down. It's a very powerful cantrip for any melee attacker except GWM users. And maybe PAM.



If anything, it made not taking Booming Blade on Rogue a sub-optimal choice, but I didn't mind it that much since Rogue is a low-tier class.
Rogues are a top tier class. You're very mistaken in your judgement if you believe otherwise.

[bendking]

I have. It isn't.

Are Rogues Wizards? No. Can they excel at social and investigation pillars while making a strong contribution to the combat pillar? Yes.

If you do the math, you're better off attacking with an offhand weapon for the accuracy boost and greater likelihood of landing a sneak attack. The only time a BB is always the best choice for a rogue is if they took war caster and get an OP attack; which is a niche case.

Even if you have BB available, you're often better off making a regular attack so you have the option of a bonus action offhand attack - assuming maximizing SA damage is the goal.


Anyways back on the main topic, this change doesn't actually affect arcane trickster that much. Getting sneak attack on reactions is still the bulk of their extra damage.

I did do the math. And it's a considerable difference. Let's break it down.
Level 20 AT, Shadow Blade casted at 3rd level, against an AC of 19, with Elven Accuracy, assuming you used your Owl to do a Flyby Help, giving your first attack triple-advantage.
Main-hand uses Shadow Blade, off-hand uses Shortsword.

Here are the numbers (produced by LucidSavant's DPR calculator):
Booming Blade - 73 DPR
Booming Blade + Rider Triggers - 91 DPR
Regular Attack + Bonus Attack - 61 DPR
Regular Attack + Bonus Attack (+3 Shortsword) - 65 DPR

Keep in mind, using just Booming Blade also keeps your bonus action free to use Cunning Action which is a staple of the Rogue. This makes it possible to use the Bonus Action to disengage, thus practically ensuring the rider triggers. Personally, I prefer taking Mobile and keeping my bonus action free for other things such as Dash, making you even harder to pin down. Also, staying in place (the result of not being able to Disengage as a bonus action) also makes you much more vulnerable, which isn't great for squishy characters such as Rogues (unless MCed to get better AC).
And of course, if you want to cast Shadow Blade for maximum DPR, your Bonus Action is taken on the first round of combat, dipping your DPR to 53.


Your unsupported, general, and overly broad statements warranted about that much effort in response. Since I don't need to point out to you that the game was not designed for power gamers, not in this edition anyway, I think we are about done. (Ah, I see that cutlery and stoutstien have offered a similar response, so I'll retire from this line of discourse).

As I said, it's fine not to play high-op. I am discussing high-op here, which is clearly a discussion we two shouldn't be having.


Booming Blade could definitely stand to be toned down. It's a very powerful cantrip for any melee attacker except GWM users. And maybe PAM.
Well, it's definitely not a "very powerful cantrip" for any class that has Extra Attack, not just GWM users. It's mainly useful for classes without Extra Attack.

In any case, I'll stop the discussion (on my part) here since I don't want this to escalate further. Hopefully, some of what I said made sense to some of you, and if it didn't, that's also fine.

[stoutstien]

I stop reading any build that relies on a familiar to provide advantage. If you can pull that off more than once or twice a day then the encounters your table arw facing challenges aren't high enough to even consider optimal play.

[cutlery]

I did do the math. And it's a considerable difference. Let's break it down.
Level 20 AT, Shadow Blade casted at 3rd level,

Why would you use concentration for Shadow Blade instead of Haste (for readied action sneak attacks) or greater invisibility?

[KorvinStarmast]

which is clearly a discussion we two shouldn't be having. Thank you for your gracious reply. Here, have a beer, on me. 🍻👍

Why would you use concentration for Shadow Blade instead of Haste (for readied action sneak attacks) or greater invisibility? IIRC, even in dim light you get advantage on the attack with Shadow blade, not just in darkness. There are a boat load of ways that dim light happens. (I need to review shadow blade again to clear up in my own mind why one would do that. Also, SB is level 2 spell, haste is level 3)

[bendking]

I stop reading any build that relies on a familiar to provide advantage. If you can pull that off more than once or twice a day then the encounters your table isn't facing challenges high enough to even consider optimal play.

I provided it to both builds so I don't see what's the problem. It's not that hard to get advantage at level 20 anyway.
Besides, you have Shadow Blade which makes it even easier to get advantage.


Why would you use concentration for Shadow Blade instead of Haste (for readied action sneak attacks) or greater invisibility?

Because Haste is quite dangerous to cast if you're on the front-lines. I would rather someone else cast it on me.
Anyway, that is beside the point, because both of the builds gain from it. I could just as well remove Shadow Blade from both builds and the difference wouldn't change much.


Thank you for your gracious reply. Here, have a beer, on me. 🍻👍
Not sure whether you're being sarcastic. Poe's Law and all.
Either way, I was being genuine since I don't think we should be discussing character balance considering our different view of the game.

[Dork_Forge]

I did do the math. And it's a considerable difference. Let's break it down.
Level 20 AT, Shadow Blade casted at 3rd level, against an AC of 19, with Elven Accuracy, assuming you used your Owl to do a Flyby Help, giving your first attack triple-advantage.
Main-hand uses Shadow Blade, off-hand uses Shortsword.

Here are the numbers (produced by LucidSavant's DPR calculator):
Booming Blade - 73 DPR
Booming Blade + Rider Triggers - 91 DPR
Regular Attack + Bonus Attack - 61 DPR
Regular Attack + Bonus Attack (+3 Shortsword) - 65 DPR

Keep in mind, using just Booming Blade also keeps your bonus action free to use Cunning Action which is a staple of the Rogue. This makes it possible to use the Bonus Action to disengage, thus practically ensuring the rider triggers. Personally, I prefer taking Mobile and keeping my bonus action free for other things such as Dash, making you even harder to pin down. Also, staying in place (the result of not being able to Disengage as a bonus action) also makes you much more vulnerable, which isn't great for squishy characters such as Rogues (unless MCed to get better AC).
And of course, if you want to cast Shadow Blade for maximum DPR, your Bonus Action is taken on the first round of combat, dipping your DPR to 53.

So is everything that isn't an AT suboptimal to you?

Not only is a level 20 comparison mostly useless to actual play, it also heavily favours the cantrip (which gets it's highest amount of dice), which does nothing but reinforce your point.

I'm also very confused why you think a Rogue is squishy at all? A d8 for hps with Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Cunning Action etc. If it's their AC then I think your view may be a bit skewed, you don't need 20+AC to not be squishy.

[Gtdead]

The main draw for BB on Rogue is not Warcaster, it's having an attack with extra damage and a rider that synergizes with the Rogue's bonus action Disengage. It's straight-up better than his regular attack.
Rogue is completely outclasses by other classes in the game, so yes, I would say he needs it. Without Booming Blade working with Sneak Attack (which I am still not certain of) the Rogue is just much weaker.

What builds are you talking about? The only way to force the rider is to do it on a melee that hasn't yet engaged which is a whole can of worms as far as optimization goes and it's still a gimmick. You have to deal with how you will reach the target without dash, how you will apply both SA and BB etc.

And without the rider, DW is strictly better up to lvl 11 (and probably stays) so you can just go mobile+DW and you pretty much maxed out in damage as far as single classed rogue goes. You may get more dice damage with BB, but DW gives a chance to apply SA if you miss your first attack, which completely changes the math. Try calculating against a common 15 AC with the increased chance to apply SA and you will see the results yourself. Plus you can do some minor crit fishing if your DM doesn't object at rolling both dices at the same time ^^

[KorvinStarmast]

Not sure whether you're being sarcastic. Nope, was being for real. I figured that with the somewhat snarky tone in my first reply I ought to acknowledge your taking the initiative to improve the tone. Have another beer. 🍻😎

[cutlery]

I could just as well remove Shadow Blade from both builds and the difference wouldn't change much.

G.Invis means attacking with advantage for both main and off hand.

You'll have better average damage due to greater likelihood of landing the sneaks. The option of an offhand attack trumps the piddly 13.5 damage from a SCAGtrip; unless ACs drop below 16ish - which shouldn't even be mooks at 20.

A SCAGtrip is nice when you know you want to use your BA to disengage; but it is only a modest increase in other scenarios because of how important it is to get a second chance to land SA.

Rogues aren't weak, and SCAGtrips are merely icing for them - not the whole cake.

[RogueJK]

I'm hoping it's now a melee spell attack instead of weapon attack.


That would be a massive oof for Tricksters and EKs.

And 2/X Sorcadins, consider you can't smite on a melee spell attack.

[Hael]

I don’t quite see why you wouldn’t be able to SA BB anymore. Or for that matter quicken BB. Twinning, Warcaster OAs and *maybe* reach attacks (depending on wording) are likely out though.

The primary nerf seems to be to warcaster Gish Tanks, and especially EKs as they tend to have their reaction available as well as a few edge cases (sorcadin and melee sorcerer nova).

[Man_Over_Game]

It was mostly a buff for classes that needed the buff. Rogue is already one of the worst classes in the game, taking Booming Blade away from him like that is straight-up brutal.
It's not like it was OP on full-casters, which are the strongest classes in the game, so it didn't power creep the game in any way. It mostly propped-up the less powerful classes.

If anything, it made not taking Booming Blade on Rogue a sub-optimal choice, but I didn't mind it that much since Rogue is a low-tier class.
Of course, I would have preferred seeing the Rogue buffed instead of this band-aid solution, but removing the band-aid and not giving a replacement is a bad call.

I mean, the Rogue isn't really impacted by this change at all. Rogues aren't dependent on anything other than whether or not an attack with an eligible weapon was made. If anything, it'd only be a nerf to builds that tried to abuse it as anything more than that, mostly tanky gishes. Considering how common they are, not really sure if anyone needs to really worry about them.

There are parts about the mechanics of Paladins, EKs and Bladesingers that I think are stupid, but they are probably still stronger than most other stuff.

[Gtdead]

I think Clerics got hit the hardest from this. Most cleric builds were depending on it just to be relevant since warcaster and it worked well because warcaster is pretty much a feat tax. Now that it can't be used with warcaster there is no point in spending effort and resources to optimize around it. Sorcerer multiclasses can still use it as a nova option.

[stoutstien]

I mean, the Rogue isn't really impacted by this change at all. Rogues aren't dependent on anything other than whether or not an attack with an eligible weapon was made. If anything, it'd only be a nerf to builds that tried to abuse it as anything more than that, namely Paladin+Sorcerer builds, or most tanky gishes.

Aye. There is a new attack cantrips in the book as well with lighting strike. Who knows what that will bring.

[stoutstien]

I think Clerics got hit the hardest from this. Most cleric builds were depending on it just to be relevant since warcaster and it worked well because warcaster is pretty much a feat tax. Now that it can't be used with warcaster there is no point in spending effort and resources to optimize around it. Sorcerer multiclasses can still use it as a nova option.
They standard dodge/ SW/SG combo is still one of the best options for clerics who want to blender. War caster isn't a tax for clerics nearly as much as classes who can't use shields as focus.

[RogueJK]

War caster isn't a tax for clerics nearly as much as classes who can't use shields as focus.

Warcaster wasn't needed to cast BB while holding a weapon and shield anyway. Its components are just Verbal and Material, and the Material component is a weapon (which you're already holding anyway).

So anyone with access to Booming Blade - either through a class, race, or feat - can "sword and board" with that spell already.

[stoutstien]

Warcaster wasn't needed to cast BB while holding a weapon and shield anyway. Anyone can do that. Its components are just Verbal and Material, and the Material component is a weapon (which you're already holding anyway).

I think they were referring to the BB on AOO.

[Gtdead]

They standard dodge/ SW/SG combo is still one of the best options for clerics who want to blender. War caster isn't a tax for clerics nearly as much as classes who can't use shields as focus.

Yea but you don't have endless spell slots. It was nice to be able to start a fight with bless and running to the enemies threatening a BB AoO, or just dashing to a chokepoint. I've heard something about spending CD charges to regain spells though which seems promising.

[J-H]

Good. I'll allow it now, and GFB if that one is also changed to make sense.
Also, "booming energy" is just stupid sounding.

[KorvinStarmast]

warcaster is pretty much a feat tax. For a cleric, I am for once inclined to agree with the idea of a feat tax. As you go up levels getting hit is more likely due to how many + the opponents have, and the increase in spell casters/dragon breath etc that the party faces. As I look back, all of my clerics grabbed warcaster as soon as they could at the expense of boosing wiz to 20 (at that point in their careers). Heck, even my warlock (Celestial; an all-suppport build as we have no cleric), took it at level 8 rather than boost cha to 20. She res Con at 1 for vHuman. Yeah, I really hate missing those concentration saves.

Aye. There is a new attack cantrips in the book as well with lighting strike. Who knows what that will bring. Tempest Clerics. It's like how leaving bacon chunks on the ground brings puppies ...:smallsmile:

[Willie the Duck]

I'm sad that they didn't give it a less ridiculous name. "Booming", really?
Especially when singing swords and thundering hammers have such a storied tradition.


if they really are going to errata stuff I can image some other stuff that could use tuning (both up and down) before Booming Blade...

its pretty perfect as it is.

It was mostly a buff for classes that needed the buff. Rogue is already one of the worst classes in the game, taking Booming Blade away from him like that is straight-up brutal.
It's not like it was OP on full-casters, which are the strongest classes in the game, so it didn't power creep the game in any way. It mostly propped-up the less powerful classes.

I've always been of many minds on the SCAGtrips (BB in particular, since it works better for grabbing even if you don't have an optimal casting stat).

On one hand, if single-attack classes needed some kind of patch, this is not how you should* go about doing it. It is awkward, clunky, relies on one of the otherwise least liked splats in the game, and leads to strange and possibly unintended interaction effects, and creates the new headache of 'weapon attack as part of spellcasting action and not an attack action' to confuse people new to the game on top of all the other poor-wording-pitfalls like unarmed weapon attacks and such. Before hexblade came out as a poorly thought through patch for pact of blade, this was one of my go-to examples of 'I don't care whether it is overpowered or not, I still don't like how they did it.'
*IMO, obviously.

On the other hand, the classes and concepts (classes doing specific things, such as cleric who wants to actually swing their weapon at levels 5+) that usually pick this up are not the runaway power concepts in the game. That's the threshold I am using*: not dominating. Eldritch Knights (who, from what I can tell, have mostly moved to XGTE as their +1), Arcane Tricksters, Clerics who want to swing their mace instead of just sit back and dodge while their Spirit/ual spells act as their combat contribution... heck, mountain dwarf wizards who have these nice weapon proficiencies, decent AC and Str bonus and actually want to use them... none of them are such that a boost like this specifically unbalances things.
*Hopefully avoiding the 'are rogues bad' dumpster fire.

Now, a sorcadin or hex-sorlock or similar can quicken it (and because your other action would be an attack, doesn't run into the normal limits of quickened spells), and that's annoying. I really don't care how often one would use it, it's a perk to the whole cha-based contorted knot that it doesn't need. That pushes it a little more back to 'they really should find another way to boost single-attackers, if that was their goal' in my books.

And that last sentence is pretty much where I sit. It's not horrid. It isn't simulacrum-level broken or 1H quarterstaff+PAM+shield level silly or the like, but if there was another way of achieving the same basic ends, I'd much prefer another option.

[stoutstien]

Honestly I wish they would just fix lighting lure. Damage riders never worked IMO as a good " stay where I want you" effect.

[CMCC]

I think Clerics got hit the hardest from this. Most cleric builds were depending on it just to be relevant since warcaster and it worked well because warcaster is pretty much a feat tax. Now that it can't be used with warcaster there is no point in spending effort and resources to optimize around it. Sorcerer multiclasses can still use it as a nova option.

I’m starting my new booming blade cleric with war caster tonight. So this is great news :(

[Waazraath]

I've always been of many minds on the SCAGtrips (BB in particular, since it works better for grabbing even if you don't have an optimal casting stat).

On one hand, if single-attack classes needed some kind of patch, this is not how you should* go about doing it. It is awkward, clunky, relies on one of the otherwise least liked splats in the game, and leads to strange and possibly unintended interaction effects, and creates the new headache of 'weapon attack as part of spellcasting action and not an attack action' to confuse people new to the game on top of all the other poor-wording-pitfalls like unarmed weapon attacks and such. Before hexblade came out as a poorly thought through patch for pact of blade, this was one of my go-to examples of 'I don't care whether it is overpowered or not, I still don't like how they did it.'
*IMO, obviously.

On the other hand, the classes and concepts (classes doing specific things, such as cleric who wants to actually swing their weapon at levels 5+) that usually pick this up are not the runaway power concepts in the game. That's the threshold I am using*: not dominating. Eldritch Knights (who, from what I can tell, have mostly moved to XGTE as their +1), Arcane Tricksters, Clerics who want to swing their mace instead of just sit back and dodge while their Spirit/ual spells act as their combat contribution... heck, mountain dwarf wizards who have these nice weapon proficiencies, decent AC and Str bonus and actually want to use them... none of them are such that a boost like this specifically unbalances things.
*Hopefully avoiding the 'are rogues bad' dumpster fire.

Now, a sorcadin or hex-sorlock or similar can quicken it (and because your other action would be an attack, doesn't run into the normal limits of quickened spells), and that's annoying. I really don't care how often one would use it, it's a perk to the whole cha-based contorted knot that it doesn't need. That pushes it a little more back to 'they really should find another way to boost single-attackers, if that was their goal' in my books.

And that last sentence is pretty much where I sit. It's not horrid. It isn't simulacrum-level broken or 1H quarterstaff+PAM+shield level silly or the like, but if there was another way of achieving the same basic ends, I'd much prefer another option.

Very nuanced and well-thought take, if you ask me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly I wish they would just fix lighting lure. Damage riders never worked IMO as a good " stay where I want you" effect. Hmm, I can't find that spell. Which book is it in?

[CMCC]

Hmm, I can't find that spell. Which book is it in?

It’s in Scag

[Zhorn]

Hmm, I can't find that spell. Which book is it in?

also in the SCAG

[Gtdead]

I’m starting my new booming blade cleric with war caster tonight. So this is great news :(

Haha yea mate, you spent so much time in that thread looking for opinions on optimizing your melee cleric and now everything turned upside down.

[bendking]

Aye. There is a new attack cantrips in the book as well with lighting strike. Who knows what that will bring.

What Lightning Strike? I couldn't find anything about it online.

And for the record, I am not ignoring some of the replies to me, I just prefer not to keep this discussion going any further here. If any of ya'll is really interested in discussing this, hit me up in DMs.

[KorvinStarmast]

It’s in Scag Aha, that'll learn me to not have that linked ... thanks.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't see anything that would interfere with War Caster. Range: Self (5' radius) doesn't tell you what it targets. And Sneak Attack can be made with spell attacks (assuming, without any evidence, that its changed to that), as long as you use a finesse or ranged weapon to make the attack: Magic Stone shot from a sling is a prime example.

[RogueJK]

Agreed. Unless it has actually been changed to a spell attack (which was just a "what if" that had been floated), the only conflict resulting from this change appears to be disallowing Spell Sniper for BB use with Reach weapons.

[stoutstien]

What Lightning Strike? I couldn't find anything about it online.

And for the record, I am not ignoring some of the replies to me, I just prefer not to keep this discussion going any further here. If any of ya'll is really interested in discussing this, hit me up in DMs.

the name is confirmed as well as artificer getting it but thats all that can be seen.

Something tells me all the old "go to" options are going to be challenged. This is looking like the biggest single release of player options to date.

[bendking]

the name is confirmed as well as artificer getting it but thats all that can be seen.

Something tells me all the old "go to" options are going to be challenged. This is looking like the biggest single release of player options to date.

It was apparently a miss-understanding according to this page (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSplPDkDlAx_oxhRnjkFy-RoW2PjgwgMvyYozWLIGGZYDVKNVY5VEe3KbgZa9dRBgl38q6dn nPYR6Ku/pub).
Probably mistaken for Lightning Lure.

[cutlery]

It was apparently a miss-understanding according to this page (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSplPDkDlAx_oxhRnjkFy-RoW2PjgwgMvyYozWLIGGZYDVKNVY5VEe3KbgZa9dRBgl38q6dn nPYR6Ku/pub).
Probably mistaken for Lightning Lure.

You mean the Fathomless Warlock won't be getting a new spell called lightning bold? Dang.

[Stangler]

One of my problems with BB is that it is a very all or nothing attack and is useless with multiattack. For rogues you really need to land that sneak attack and that means two attacks are way better than one. The best bet to overcome that is advantage/elvish accuracy.

I would probably prefer it as a smite like attack but then it would be way better than those smites as it is a cantrip.

Overall the balance and mechanics of BB always seemed off and poorly thought out.

[Dork_Forge]

It was apparently a miss-understanding according to this page (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSplPDkDlAx_oxhRnjkFy-RoW2PjgwgMvyYozWLIGGZYDVKNVY5VEe3KbgZa9dRBgl38q6dn nPYR6Ku/pub).
Probably mistaken for Lightning Lure.

Huh, an Alchemist with Green Flame Blade would actually be a pretty good melee option for them, interesting!

[NorthernPhoenix]

I'm generally pleased they seem to be dipping their toes in the water of daring to nerf things, but as long as dnd remains a primarily book first, online resources second game, these types of balancing changes will be few and far between.

[CMCC]

One of my problems with BB is that it is a very all or nothing attack and is useless with multiattack. For rogues you really need to land that sneak attack and that means two attacks are way better than one. The best bet to overcome that is advantage/elvish accuracy.

I would probably prefer it as a smite like attack but then it would be way better than those smites as it is a cantrip.

Overall the balance and mechanics of BB always seemed off and poorly thought out.

For most classes that aren't rogue, that single attack is generally better than even two attacks (mathematically - until you have high powered weapons or upcast shadowblade), and plenty of classes only get a single attack. For them, they basically need a powerful cantrip to make melee work (tempest, forge, arcana clerics etc.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Huh, an Alchemist with Green Flame Blade would actually be a pretty good melee option for them, interesting!

I had a player that wanted to play an Alchemist based off the Pyromancers in a Song of Fire and Ice, (whom use a Green Napalm like substance).

I suggested GFB, the player like it, and I allowed it as Artificer Cantrip.

It was both effective thematically and mechanically.
(Which is the dream).

[stoutstien]

It was apparently a miss-understanding according to this page (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSplPDkDlAx_oxhRnjkFy-RoW2PjgwgMvyYozWLIGGZYDVKNVY5VEe3KbgZa9dRBgl38q6dn nPYR6Ku/pub).
Probably mistaken for Lightning Lure.

Noooo.i want at least one artificer exclusive spell. Fine I'll make my own.

[MaxWilson]

For most classes that aren't rogue, that single attack is generally better than even two attacks (mathematically - until you have high powered weapons or upcast shadowblade), and plenty of classes only get a single attack. For them, they basically need a powerful cantrip to make melee work (tempest, forge, arcana clerics etc.

When full casters can make melee work better than Extra Attack just by taking a cantrip, it steps on Extra Attack's toes quite a bit.

[cutlery]

Yep.

Without feats, A level 17 bladesinger can manage 5d8 + 20 in melee (ignoring BB and GFB riders).

A level 17 EK can manage pretty much the same with war magic (though, without two stat mods) at the cost of a bonus action (as can some bards), or something like 6d6+15 without.

The bladesinger has a tasty pile of spells for everything else; as well as access to stuff like foresight.

Feats help, but this becomes more of a case of feats being required for the EK to readily distinguish themselves at what is pretty much their main (if not only) niche than a case of “OMG gwm is so strong!”.

[CMCC]

Yep.

Without feats, A level 17 bladesinger can manage 5d8 + 20 in melee (ignoring BB and GFB riders).

A level 17 EK can manage pretty much the same with war magic (though, without two stat mods) at the cost of a bonus action (as can some bards), or something like 6d6+15 without.

The bladesinger has a tasty pile of spells for everything else; as well as access to stuff like foresight.

Feats help, but this becomes more of a case of feats being required for the EK to readily distinguish themselves at what is pretty much their main (if not only) niche than a case of “OMG gwm is so strong!”.

can you break down that math?

[cutlery]

can you break down that math?

Setting aside advantage and shadow blade (available to both), and assuming accuracy is identical (to be fair, more ASIs spent on main stats for the Bladesigner, but they have spellcasting for utility).

BS can attack for 1d8+10 (rapier, +dex and +int from song of victory); bladesong must be active for song of victory.

The other 3d8 are from cantrip damage; as BB or GFB require a melee attack as part of the spell, they’d get 1d8+10 from that, too.

So, 5d8+20, or ~42.5 damage. Guess how much damage eldritch blast does at level 17?

The EK can attack once and BB, but has no song of victory, so 5d8+10, or 32.5 damage. Or they can triple attack with a maul for 6d6+15, or 36 damage. At level 20 they Catch up, and at 11 should have a lead until 14.

Feats give the edge to the EK, but without them it’s roughly even with them trading places for a long time.

The ek is better off forgoing war magic altogether and up casting shadow blade to level 3.

The bladesinger can do this too, or upcast to 5; a bladesigner can really pump out a lot of damage like this, and any spell cast earlier that grants bonus actions is available.

[Bardon]

When full casters can make melee work better than Extra Attack just by taking a cantrip, it steps on Extra Attack's toes quite a bit.

Precisely. As another measure - take a look at how many builds you find that feature Booming Blade as a large part of their damage generation. A cantrip shouldn't be that much of a game-changer that it seems most people consider it pretty much mandatory, if your GM allows the SCAG cantrips.

[TheMango55]

Booming blade’s range is self but it still targets a single creature. You can’t hit everyone in the 5 foot radius with booming blade after all. I’d say it can still be used with war caster as an opportunity attack.

[bendking]

For most classes that aren't rogue, that single attack is generally better than even two attacks (mathematically - until you have high powered weapons or upcast shadowblade), and plenty of classes only get a single attack. For them, they basically need a powerful cantrip to make melee work (tempest, forge, arcana clerics etc.

I don't see how that's true. Can you show the math?

[CMCC]

I don't see how that's true. Can you show the math?

You have to make an assumption about the rider. I use the treantmonk number of 50%.

So at 5th level:
2 attacks 2d8+8 = 17 damage
1 booming (2d8+4) + (2d8 * 0.5) = 17.5 damage

[cutlery]

You have to make an assumption about the rider. I use the treantmonk number of 50%.

So at 5th level:
2 attacks 2d8+8 = 17 damage
1 booming (2d8+4) + (2d8 * 0.5) = 17.5 damage

I'd think 0% would be a safer assumption, in the case of BB. Bonus damage is a happy surprise, but you can't count on it, particularly with intelligent enemies.

GFB gets applied just as often as horde breaker is useful; I don't think 50% is quite reasonable for that, either.

[MaxWilson]

I'd think 0% would be a safer assumption, in the case of BB. Bonus damage is a happy surprise, but you can't count on it, particularly with intelligent enemies.

If you have Mobile feat or some equivalent, 50% is a more than reasonable assumption against melee enemies, which is the vast majority of the MM.

[cutlery]

If you have Mobile feat or some equivalent, 50% is a more than reasonable assumption against melee enemies, which is the vast majority of the MM.

Perhaps if you are the solo melee combatant in your party. If not, any creature in melee with someone else is rather unlikely to move.

[MaxWilson]

Perhaps if you are the solo melee combatant in your party. If not, any creature in melee with someone else is rather unlikely to move.

I think you meant "sole melee combatant fighting a given monster", yes? If Bob and I are fighting Orogs, and each of us is fighting an Orog, I'm not going to be Booming Blading Bob's Orog (by definition, or he wouldn't be Bob's Orog). Therefore I'll get my Booming Blade bonus damage.

If Bob and I are focusing fire, we won't necessarily get the Booming Blade bonus damage but we'll get something better, like the opportunity for both of us to gain advantage and melee kite if one of us knocks the bad guy prone. And against a prone enemy, you don't really even need Mobile to avoid their opportunity attack. If I'm Booming Blade and Bob's a GWM/PAM, risking one opportunity attack at disadvantage in order to get Booming Blade bonus damage and a PAM reaction attack is probably worth it.

So, Booming Blade + Mobile winds up being weak in scenarios where a bunch of melee PCs are all fighting one giant melee monster together. It seems reasonable to guess that that's not going to happen more than 50% of the time. YMMV though.

[king_steve]

Perhaps if you are the solo melee combatant in your party. If not, any creature in melee with someone else is rather unlikely to move.

Don't forget your party can also encourage the enemy to trigger the effect as well, for example Flame Sphere, create bonfire or some other effect like that might make an enemy want to move and trigger the Booming blade.

[Dork_Forge]

You have to make an assumption about the rider. I use the treantmonk number of 50%.

So at 5th level:
2 attacks 2d8+8 = 17 damage
1 booming (2d8+4) + (2d8 * 0.5) = 17.5 damage

Assuming that this is meant to be a comparison with Extra Attack classes, it's only favourable to Booming Blade if you are prioritising something other than damage.

At 5th level:

Dueling: 2d8+12= 21 damage

TWF: 3d6+12= 22.5

Then you get into other comparisons, like using a larger weapon, two handing a versatile weapon, Hunter's Mark, Rage damage. If an Extra attack class is only doing 2d8+Mod then they likely don't care about damage to begin with.

[MaxWilson]

Then you get into other comparisons, like using a larger weapon, two handing a versatile weapon, Hunter's Mark, Rage damage. If an Extra attack class is only doing 2d8+Mod then they likely don't care about damage to begin with.

Even if a Cavalier "doesn't care" about damage because he's mostly about tanking, and is happy to do 3x d8+3 (22.5) with his Strength 16, it's still pretty sad for the Cavalier if a Mobile Necromancer 10/Life Cleric 1 is doing d6+5d8+2 (28) with Strength 15 and Booming Blade. Minimal investment by a Fighter still ought to result in more damage than minimal investment by a wizard.

Conceptually I think Booming Blade is great for EKs, but I hate how it interacts with 5E's spellcasting and multiclassing rules. My own personal solution isn't to nerf Booming Blade per se though, I just re-impose AD&D-style penalties for spellcasting in melee. That is, being incapacitated or casting a spell (unless you have Warcaster) allows enemies within range to make an opportunity attack. Warcaster's avoiding that opportunity attack replaces Warcaster's "cast a spell as an opportunity attack" benefit.

[cutlery]

Do you disagree? Are 4-on-1 fights ubiquitous in your games?

I suppose it depends on the table. One game I play in regularly skews heavily towards one or two big bads in most fights; the other in favor of swarms. The swarms tend to get the jump on the party, though, so we are quickly overrun. I'm not saying an occasional Mobile relocation isn't going to happen, but it might take more than one attack to get to a baddie that really would have no other targets after I left. A cunning action disengage can do the trick, but convincing them to trigger isn't so easy.

A misty step, on the other hand, can do the trick, but at a high cost. Create Bonfire is more reliable way to force movement, although it requires to use of a reaction to apply damage.

We also frequently have humanoids with gear as enemies, and a javelin or two seems to be rather standard issue.

Now, when it's me running things, I tend to move away from low intelligence enemies rather quickly, and they have ranged options. I won't say it never works, but 50% is a gross overestimate.

[MaxWilson]

Now, when it's me running things, I tend to move away from low intelligence enemies rather quickly, and they have ranged options. I won't say it never works, but 50% is a gross overestimate.

What kinds of monsters do you typically use? Saying "ranged options" doesn't tell me much, e.g. Giants have ranged options, but like most MM monsters their ranged damage is meagre compared to their melee damage, so a giant who opts to stand still instead of taking Booming Blade damage is giving up quite a lot of damage. For a Fire Giant (for example) it's the difference between 12d6+14 (56) and 4d10+7 (29).

Would an 11th level party at your table be likely to be fighting four Fire Giants, or one Fire Giant, or a Glabrezu (magical ranged option) and a Drow Mage (magical ranged attacks), or twelve quicklings (thrown daggers), or something else? Booming Blade would be good against the giants and the Glabrezu, and maybe the Quicklings; bad against the Drow Mage or an Orthon.

[CMCC]

I'd think 0% would be a safer assumption, in the case of BB. Bonus damage is a happy surprise, but you can't count on it, particularly with intelligent enemies.

GFB gets applied just as often as horde breaker is useful; I don't think 50% is quite reasonable for that, either.

GFB gets applied 100%. There’s never a reason to use it unless you have two enemies in adjacent squares. When applicable that beats 2 attacks almost every time - unless you have a +4 weapon or something.


Assuming that this is meant to be a comparison with Extra Attack classes, it's only favourable to Booming Blade if you are prioritising something other than damage.

At 5th level:

Dueling: 2d8+12= 21 damage

TWF: 3d6+12= 22.5

Then you get into other comparisons, like using a larger weapon, two handing a versatile weapon, Hunter's Mark, Rage damage. If an Extra attack class is only doing 2d8+Mod then they likely don't care about damage to begin with.

I’m comparing 2 attacks to 1 attack (all else equal). I’m not sure why you’re adding other factors in like a comparison between two classes or fighting styles. There are many ways to make 2 attacks better than 1 booming blade - you’ve identified a couple.

[Dork_Forge]

Even if a Cavalier "doesn't care" about damage because he's mostly about tanking, and is happy to do 3x d8+3 (22.5) with his Strength 16, it's still pretty sad for the Cavalier if a Mobile Necromancer 10/Life Cleric 1 is doing d6+5d8+2 (28) with Strength 15 and Booming Blade. Minimal investment by a Fighter still ought to result in more damage than minimal investment by a wizard.

Conceptually I think Booming Blade is great for EKs, but I hate how it interacts with 5E's spellcasting and multiclassing rules. My own personal solution isn't to nerf Booming Blade per se though, I just re-impose AD&D-style penalties for spellcasting in melee. That is, being incapacitated or casting a spell (unless you have Warcaster) allows enemies within range to make an opportunity attack. Warcaster's avoiding that opportunity attack replaces Warcaster's "cast a spell as an opportunity attack" benefit.

This situation seems a little extreme but I'd argue that the Wizard has made a larger investment that the Fighter by taking the cantrip.

Really though I find this situation intentionally extreme to a near comical degree, a Fighter with a 16 attacking stat after 3 ASIs, but not taking any feats or fighting styles for damage. You could even argue that the additional attacks granted by Unwavering Mark and Hold the Line should be factored into the damage consideration here.

I like the diea of adding reaction attacks to casting in melee though, that would add a substantial balancing factor to casting.

[MaxWilson]

This situation seems a little extreme but I'd argue that the Wizard has made a larger investment that the Fighter by taking the cantrip.

Really? I'm not seeing it. It's just a cantrip. What made it such a large investment?


Really though I find this situation intentionally extreme to a near comical degree, a Fighter with a 16 attacking stat after 3 ASIs, but not taking any feats or fighting styles for damage. You could even argue that the additional attacks granted by Unwavering Mark and Hold the Line should be factored into the damage consideration here.

Let's say you've got a Cavalier who started off with Str 14 (low die rolls or something), because Cavaliers still contribute in combat even without extreme DPR. Defense style helps him tank, and Defensive Duelist helps him stay alive, so take that as his human feat. He spends an ASI on Str 16, then another ASI on Lucky, and another on Healer. He's made minimal investments in damage (just an ASI), but it's still more investment than the Wizard made by spending a cantrip, and the wizard is still out-damaging him.

The wizard did invest significantly in mobility (Str 15 and Mobile), and mobility is good, but it would still be good even if Booming Blade didn't exist.

I saw wizards like this fairly frequently before my houserule. Now less so, because Warcaster is a moderately pricey investment for a wizard.

[Dork_Forge]

Really? I'm not seeing it. It's just a cantrip. What made it such a large investment?

They get five cantrips known by level ten, they invested one in Booming Blade vs the Figher that seems to have made no class based choice in favour of damage (presumably the Wizard would have taken BB at Wiz 1 though).


Let's say you've got a Cavalier who started off with Str 14 (low die rolls or something), because Cavaliers still contribute in combat even without extreme DPR. Defense style helps him tank, and Defensive Duelist helps him stay alive, so take that as his human feat. He spends an ASI on Str 16, then another ASI on Lucky, and another on Healer. He's made minimal investments in damage (just an ASI), but it's still more investment than the Wizard made by spending a cantrip, and the wizard is still out-damaging him.

The wizard did invest significantly in mobility (Str 15 and Mobile), and mobility is good, but it would still be good even if Booming Blade didn't exist.

I saw wizards like this fairly frequently before my houserule. Now less so, because Warcaster is a moderately pricey investment for a wizard.

You're now creating the parameters around the scenario, you originally just presented attacking stat and class, you are now adding in that the Fighter started with an abyssmal primary stat and invested an ASI whilst the Wizard chose Mobile. What's to say that the Wizard didn't use an ASI to raise their Str? After all a necromancer/Cleric has a lower dependency on Int and they still got two ASIs.

I think Wizards in general could use a nerf, but I don't think any of my players would accept it *shrug*

[MaxWilson]

They get five cantrips known by level ten, they invested one in Booming Blade vs the Figher that seems to have made (A) no class based choice in favour of damage (presumably the Wizard would have taken BB at Wiz 1 though).

(B) You're now creating the parameters around the scenario, you originally just presented attacking stat and class, you are now adding in that the Fighter started with an abyssmal primary stat and invested an ASI whilst the Wizard chose Mobile. What's to say that the Wizard didn't use an ASI to raise their Str? After all a necromancer/Cleric has a lower dependency on Int and they still got two ASIs.

I think Wizards in general could use a nerf, but I don't think any of my players would accept it *shrug*

(A) Since when does dedicating 11 levels to Fighter not count as a class-based choice? That's a HUGE investment.

(B) Str 14 isn't abyssmal, it's a moderately bad roll but nothing unusual. You already knew we were discussing "minimal investment" scenarios and a Fighter who's got Str 16--AFAIC I'm elaborating on the scenario we were already discussing.

Let's say the Wizard doesn't spend anything on Str. (Some of them don't.) Let's say he's just a very-standard Str 8 cleric/wizard with heavy armor proficiency. Mobile is still a good idea in this case in order to mitigate the 10' speed penalty for plate armor. You can of course invest in Dex 14 instead and then wear half-plate, and then arguably you don't need Mobile, but you know what we're not talking about? Booming Blade. Mobile isn't an investment in Booming Blade--rather, improved Booming Blade damage is a fringe benefit of investing in mobility, which is a common and good way IME to invest in survivability.

I've found that even with the effective nerf to Booming Blade, armored wizards are still popular. They don't need better-than-Fighter damage like the RAW gives them.

[Dork_Forge]

(A) Since when does dedicating 11 levels to Fighter not count as a class-based choice? That's a HUGE investment.

That is not the same line of discussion, we are talking about the investment for melee damage a Fighter vs a Wizard/Cleric has made, I personally don't consider 'being a Fighter' to begin with an investment in the framing of the question. If it was instead about achieving a certain amount of damage and the two builds were aiming for that then sure, but they aren't. In fact the Fighter has done well to be as bad at melee as they are here.



(B) Str 14 isn't abyssmal, it's a moderately bad roll but nothing unusual. You already knew we were discussing "minimal investment" scenarios and a Fighter who's got Str 16--AFAIC I'm elaborating on the scenario we were already discussing.

A starting Str of 14 after your racial bump is abyssmal, it is the primary stat of the character, their future subclass will have resources that key off of it and there's no good reason for it too be that low unless they've rolled a near cripplingly mediocre array. You can argue the character is not a primary damage contributer, they're a tank after all, except that to mark a creature you need to hit them. To top that off the mark lasts a turn, so you need to be reliably hitting things to do your job, despite the appearance of investing in tanking, by not raising Str they've made themselves severely handicapped.

And whilst you technically are elaborating on the scenario, this information could have shaped things differently were it available before hand. You clearly had specific things in mind, but I definitely didn't assume the Wizard had Mobile etc.


Let's say the Wizard doesn't spend anything on Str. (Some of them don't.) Let's say he's just a very-standard Str 8 cleric/wizard with heavy armor proficiency. Mobile is still a good idea in this case in order to mitigate the 10' speed penalty for plate armor. You can of course invest in Dex 14 instead and then wear half-plate, and then arguably you don't need Mobile, but you know what we're not talking about? Booming Blade. Mobile isn't an investment in Booming Blade--rather, improved Booming Blade damage is a fringe benefit of investing in mobility, which is a common and good way IME to invest in survivability.

Yes, Mobile is a good feat, I may be a bit dense but I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across here.


I've found that even with the effective nerf to Booming Blade, armored wizards are still popular. They don't need better-than-Fighter damage like the RAW gives them.

Still not agreeing that they have that better than Fighter damage RAW, the Wizard chose to make an in class choice to improve damage output, the Fighter is going out of their way to be below mediocre at damage in this scenario. Literally just taking Dueling instead of Defense would have pushed the Fighter back ahead and that's assuming that the Wizard is actually proc'ing the rider damage.

For the record whenever I use a SCAGtrip in a build or discuss them I never assume the rider in damage, at all. It's too niche to be meaningful to talk about to me, it assumes monsters are stupid enough to consistently hurt themselves/don't have a ranged option/someone else to hit etc. I also don't think that SCAGtrips just bridge the gap on their own, because they don't unless the comparison point is performing below expectations.

[CMCC]

To bring things back around... can you twin BB still?

Edit: Nope. “Doesn’t have a range of self”.

[cutlery]

I also don't think that SCAGtrips just bridge the gap on their own, because they don't unless the comparison point is performing below expectations.

I think that’s right. It isn’t a SCAGtrip that will make the new bladesinger mildly bonkers, it’s a SCAGtrip combined with their new special extra attack and song of victory.

What’s weird to me is these are in the same book (though the final piece that really puts it over the top, Shadow Blade, isn’t), so they should have figured that.

(1d8+10)*2 +3d8 is pretty nuts for someone who also gets full caster progression and the wizard list.

[Gtdead]

I'd rather use the old bladesinger and have two bladesongs per short rest than BB on extra attack. Freaking tasha's destroying my favorite subclass. :/

[MaxWilson]

A starting Str of 14 after your racial bump is abyssmal, it is the primary stat of the character, their future subclass will have resources that key off of it and there's no good reason for it too be that low unless they've rolled a near cripplingly mediocre array.

Mediocre arrays are neither crippling nor uncommon. 13, 10, 13, 9, 12, 12 isn't fantastic but it's well above the human norm, and it works perfectly fine in a number of roles including tanking. It's pretty sad however if it winds up doing better melee damage for less investment as a Booming Blade wizard than as a Cavalier Fighter, since tanking and Extra Attack(s) are the ONLY things the Cavalier class is built around while Booming Blade is only an afterthought for a wizard.

I feel like we already had this conversation, wonder why. The only thing we've learned is that you consider 14-15 a cripplingly bad Str for a human Fighter, and I don't. But you haven't even shown that that's relevant, because even with a Str of 18 (i.e. standard array or more ASIs devoted to Str/damage) the Booming Blade damage is still comparable to the Cavalier's damage and the Cavalier is still sad. Minimal Wizard investment in melee should not outdamage minimal Fighter investment in melee, because investing 11 levels in acquiring Extra Attack 2 is already a large investment compared to picking up a cantrip and the Mobile feat.

[Zhorn]

huh, linked page in the OP is now restricted

Product Preview Not Available
Unauthorized access is prohibited.

Does anyone still have access to see if there were changes being made, or know why the sudden viewing restriction?

[Dork_Forge]

Mediocre arrays are neither crippling nor uncommon. 13, 10, 13, 9, 12, 12 isn't fantastic but it's well above the human norm, and it works perfectly fine in a number of roles including tanking. It's pretty sad however if it winds up doing better melee damage for less investment as a Booming Blade wizard than as a Cavalier Fighter, since tanking and Extra Attack(s) are the ONLY things the Cavalier class is built around while Booming Blade is only an afterthought for a wizard.

Adventurers aren't the norm and whilst a lower stat array can be workable, a Cavalier Fighter functions on the basis of reliably hitting things. A Str 16 at 11th level is substantially worse at tanking than just having an 18 Str since their main tanking ability requires hitting a lot.

And the afterthought damage you're finding sad requires 1) a successful hit (requiring more and more luck the less the Wizard puts into whatever attack stat) and 2) The target to willingly move after the hit but before the rider expires. It's not as simple as 'as an after thought the Wizard melees harder than this 'low investment' Fighter,' things actually have to line up for that to be the case and in my experience and opinion the rider is so inconsistent that it isn't worth talking about outside of white rooms really.



I feel like we already had this conversation, wonder why. The only thing we've learned is that you consider 14-15 a cripplingly bad Str for a human Fighter, and I don't. But you haven't even shown that that's relevant, because even with a Str of 18 (i.e. standard array or more ASIs devoted to Str/damage) the Booming Blade damage is still comparable to the Cavalier's damage and the Cavalier is still sad. Minimal Wizard investment in melee should not outdamage minimal Fighter investment in melee, because investing 11 levels in acquiring Extra Attack 2 is already a large investment compared to picking up a cantrip and the Mobile feat.

Again it's not just about damage in the situation you've chosen, the lower the Strength the less the Cavalier is getting out of their subclass in many ways:

-The reliability they can actually mark a creature
-The number of mark attacks they can make
-The chance of hitting and subsequent damage of said mark attacks

The example Fighter has chosen to be harder to hit, which makes no benefit to anyone but their own self preservation if the enemy isn't inclined to hit them (incredibly high AC, but very poor provocation).

You seem to be equating the Mobile feat to auto triggering rider damage, if it was that simple then Swashbucklers would be top of the list to benefit there. It isn't that simple though, unless you're in a circumstance that favours it like the only person going into melee being the Wizard and the creature being stupid enough to fall for hurting itself instead of say, waiting a turn dodging or readying an attack.

For the Fighter to come off worse here you literally have to hand them a bad build whilst things turn up aces for the Wizard, despite the odds being against them. I already said that just taking Dueling overcomes those aces.

How does the DPR look if you actually factor in the to hit chances instead of just the averages and don't just assume rider success? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the Wizard falls behind.

[MaxWilson]

For the Fighter to come off worse here you literally have to hand them a bad build whilst things turn up aces for the Wizard, despite the odds being against them. I already said that just taking Dueling overcomes those aces.

And I already said it's still comparable even if you have the Cavalier increase their investment in damage even more, e.g. with Dueling instead of Defense. (IMO a mistake because this Cavalier is primarily a tank.)


How does the DPR look if you actually factor in the to hit chances instead of just the averages and don't just assume rider success? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the Wizard falls behind.

Still comparable.

[Dork_Forge]

And I already said it's still comparable even if you have the Cavalier increase their investment in damage even more, e.g. with Dueling instead of Defense. (IMO a mistake because this Cavalier is primarily a tank.)



Still comparable.

Okay... how large does the gap need to be for it to be acceptable to you?

I still think the assuming the rider is the issue, if you don't assume that damage it becomes much more reasonable...

[MaxWilson]

Okay... how large does the gap need to be for it to be acceptable to you?

There needs to be an interesting tradeoff, a distinct downside. Purely numerical gaps aren't as interesting.

If you make me pick a purely numerical gap I'll have to say "the ideal gap between the melee damage of a Fighter and the melee damage of an unspecialized wizard would be the difference between a Fighter attacking N times, and a wizard plinking away with a sling", but I could live with letting the wizard do PHB cantrip damage instead, which tends to be about 50-65% the damage of the unspecialized Fighter.

From a gameplay standpoint though, I like the gap to be about safety, which fits better with the fighter vs. wizard tradeoff. Fighters are supposed to be safer than wizards. Wizards are supposed to be fragile. Therefore, I like the results when the Booming Blade wizard can pretty much close the numerical damage gap with a minimally-invested Fighter, at the cost of taking a melee opportunity attack (if he doesn't have Warcaster). This rule isn't just a solution to the SCAG cantrip problem (it also fixes annoying things about Warcaster, and 5E spellcasting in general), but the fact that it provides an answer to the "why even play a Fighter then?" question is a definite plus.

[bendking]

You have to make an assumption about the rider. I use the treantmonk number of 50%.

So at 5th level:
2 attacks 2d8+8 = 17 damage
1 booming (2d8+4) + (2d8 * 0.5) = 17.5 damage

That's not a fair comparison at all.
1. You have to calculate hit chance into the math here.
2. You're assuming the full-caster invests into STR/DEX as much as the martial does, which is a bad idea for the caster since he wants to invest in his casting stat.
3. Your assumption of 50% is quite generous unless you have some way to disengage for free/BA like Mobile or Cunning Action, AND the enemy isn't already locked in melee with another ally. I would say it's 25% at most barring Mobile/Cunning Action.
4. Every class with Extra Attack has more modifiers boosting their damage. For example, Barbarians have Rage and Reckless Attack, Battlemasters have maneuvers, Paladin's have Smite, etc.
5. You used a highly un-optimized martial in your example. You didn't use any of the best martial feats: PAM, GWM, CBE, Sharpshooter... I'll show some numbers for standard decent builds here.

Let's make a fairer comparison, using LudicSavant's DPR calculator. I'll use a Variant Human Wizard for your case (to get Mobile) compared to other standard martial builds. Here are his stats: 8 / 16 / 14 / 16 / 10 / 8.
I'll also give your Wizard a 50% chance to activate Booming Blade because he has Mobile.

A few caveats:
1. Keep in mind, we're talking about a Sorcerer/Wizard having Booming Blade as a bonus thing they can do, but not optimizing for melee damage beyond getting his DEX to 16, because that would (most likely) come at the expense of optimizing his full-casting, while martials heavily optimize for melee damage, because what else are they going to optimize for? However, I encourage you to show me a build for a Wizard (or any other full-caster with a single attack) that is on par with some of the DPR I'm going to show here.
2. I'm not even going to use some of the resources these classes can expend, although of course, that would come into play and push their numbers (a lot) further. This means I'm not using Rage on the Barbarian, Smite on the Paladin, or Action Surge on the Fighter.
3. Also, I'm not even using sub-classes here, which on martial classes usually boost their martial power further, whilst caster sub-class features usually boost your casting, not melee power, thus widening the gap even further (example: Vengeance's Vow of Enmity, Zealot's Divine Strike, Battlemaster's Maneuvers).

Overall, I tried to be as fair as possible towards the case you're making, perhaps a little too fair by not using class resources and sub-class features.
All the numbers are against an AC of 15.

The builds:
Sorcerer (Mobile)
Paladin (Dueling, PAM (Spear))
Paladin (GWF, PAM, GWM)
Barbarian Zealot (PAM, GWM)
Fighter (CBE, Sharpshooter)

(Why did I include two Paladins? To show the damage of a Paladin that isn't highly optimized for damage, and one that is)

5th level
Sorcerer (Mobile): 9.7
Paladin (Dueling, PAM): 15.17
Paladin (GWF, PAM, GWM): 19.89
Barbarian (PAM, GWM, Reckless): 31.65
Fighter (Archery, CBE, Sharpshooter): 22.8

11th level
Sorcerer (Mobile): 14.75
Paladin (Dueling, PAM, Improved Divine Smite): 31.15
Paladin (GWF, PAM, GWM, Improved Divine Smite): 39.74
Barbarian (PAM, GWM, Reckless): 40
Fighter (Archery, CBE, Sharpshooter): 39.2

As you can see, Booming Blade is nowhere near the DPR of actual good martial builds.
I'll accept any notes regarding the Wizard build as long as they keep INT high, and I'll happily edit this post with whatever improvements you have. I doubt whatever changes you propose will be able to compete with the other classes' DPR, but you're welcome to give it a try.

[Hael]

I'd rather use the old bladesinger and have two bladesongs per short rest than BB on extra attack. Freaking tasha's destroying my favorite subclass. :/

It’s a pretty strange compromise. It’s a decent buff to their melee skill, that gives them maybe an extra two or three lvls of martial viability. So let’s say you decide to be a backliner somewhere around lvl10 (from memory that’s when I started viewing melee as suboptimal). Now it probably feels ok till lvl 12. On the other hand the primary perk of the class is severely limited and the class will feel even more terrible for late tier 3-4 relative to other mages.

Again I question the design choice and what they were trying to accomplish.

[Dork_Forge]

There needs to be an interesting tradeoff, a distinct downside. Purely numerical gaps aren't as interesting.

If you make me pick a purely numerical gap I'll have to say "the ideal gap between the melee damage of a Fighter and the melee damage of an unspecialized wizard would be the difference between a Fighter attacking N times, and a wizard plinking away with a sling", but I could live with letting the wizard do PHB cantrip damage instead, which tends to be about 50-65% the damage of the unspecialized Fighter.

From a gameplay standpoint though, I like the gap to be about safety, which fits better with the fighter vs. wizard tradeoff. Fighters are supposed to be safer than wizards. Wizards are supposed to be fragile. Therefore, I like the results when the Booming Blade wizard can pretty much close the numerical damage gap with a minimally-invested Fighter, at the cost of taking a melee opportunity attack (if he doesn't have Warcaster). This rule isn't just a solution to the SCAG cantrip problem (it also fixes annoying things about Warcaster, and 5E spellcasting in general), but the fact that it provides an answer to the "why even play a Fighter then?" question is a definite plus.

This makes me think that the game would be served by adding in a class stipulation that you can't cast in armor unless you gain an ability that specifically over rides it. This would allow armored subclasses to exist but effectively locks the Wizard out of grabbing armor on a dip, I think this would be a less simple but more effective fix. After all an opportunity attack can be nasty, but if the Wizard is in armor then chances are a reaction cast of Shield would shoot their AC into the 20s.

[cutlery]

Don't forget your party can also encourage the enemy to trigger the effect as well, for example Flame Sphere, create bonfire or some other effect like that might make an enemy want to move and trigger the Booming blade.

Sure, but that's often relatively low on the list of priorities; it's just 2d8 damage at 5th, after all - a nice bonus, but there are fireballs and hungers of hadar flying around, or the sticky barbarian in range. It isn't worth the party reshaping their formation around it. It might be worth applying movement effects; but if the Warlock with repelling blast "helps" in this way, as often as not they kill the target before the rider has a chance to trigger.

Also: much of the internet still thinks things like standing from prone or forced movement effects trigger it. It seems likely to me those misrulings play into the estimate of 50%.


What kinds of monsters do you typically use?

Humanoids are by far the most common. Smart undead, Illithid, and other creatures later. Demons and Devils too; but again the smart ones.

Anyway, regardless of what our respective tables look like - telling people that they will have a 50% chance of triggering the rider on BB is bad advice.

Better to talk instead about the guaranteed damage from a hit, and the pleasant bonus of the rider when it applies than to use figures like 50% and set expectations too high.

One can easily say the cantrip adds 0/1d8/2d8/4d8 damage with a rider and leave the rider for the tactical discussion and not part of the guaranteed damage analysis (which is appropriate, because it is not guaranteed).

[Sol0botmate]

I don't see the problem? Just ignore it if you don't like it?

XGTE is still official book, same as Tasha's. Both versions are valid.

[Tanarii]

This makes me think that the game would be served by adding in a class stipulation that you can't cast in armor unless you gain an ability that specifically over rides it. This would allow armored subclasses to exist but effectively locks the Wizard out of grabbing armor on a dip, I think this would be a less simple but more effective fix. After all an opportunity attack can be nasty, but if the Wizard is in armor then chances are a reaction cast of Shield would shoot their AC into the 20s.
It would definitely have to be a special (negative) feature of Wizard and Sorcerer spellcasting class features. Because all other spell casters natively start with armor, including warlocks and bards as Arcane casters,

OTOH we all know how well a negative restrictions went over with Druids and Necromancy in 5e, and Paladins historically. And Races. Not to mention spell casting itself. :smallamused:

[Zhorn]

I don't see the problem? Just ignore it if you don't like it?

XGTE is still official book, same as Tasha's. Both versions are valid.

SCAG not XGtE, and if rumours are true we can expect an errata to the old versions.
Yes it can be ignored for home games, but organised play will require the latest versions, and online directories will also be updated to match the latest version.

[CMCC]

That's not a fair comparison at all.
1. You have to calculate hit chance into the math here.
2. You're assuming the full-caster invests into STR/DEX as much as the martial does, which is a bad idea for the caster since he wants to invest in his casting stat.
3. Your assumption of 50% is quite generous unless you have some way to disengage for free/BA like Mobile or Cunning Action, AND the enemy isn't already locked in melee with another ally. I would say it's 25% at most barring Mobile/Cunning Action.
4. Every class with Extra Attack has more modifiers boosting their damage. For example, Barbarians have Rage and Reckless Attack, Battlemasters have maneuvers, Paladin's have Smite, etc.
5. You used a highly un-optimized martial in your example. You didn't use any of the best martial feats: PAM, GWM, CBE, Sharpshooter... I'll show some numbers for standard decent builds here.
.

Again, you’re comparing between classes for some reason. I’m not sure why. The question is whether you would make a single booming attack or 2 attacks with the same character (all else equal).

You’re over complicating the analysis here.

And you don’t HAVE to calculate hit chance, but you can - that does provide an important additional layer of data.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the result. Booming remains about 0.5 dpr better than 2 attacks from 0 AC through 25 AC. At 0 it’s 0.46 and at 25 the difference drops to about 0.3

The difference evens out at a +5 damage mod. And turns in favor of two attacks at +6. At level 11 it swings back to BB quite a bit unless you have 3 attacks.

If you want to discuss booming blade builds vs extra attack builds that is (should be) a separate discussion that I’m not particularly interested in having.

[KorvinStarmast]

Don't forget your party can also encourage the enemy to trigger the effect as well, for example Flame Sphere, create bonfire or some other effect like that might make an enemy want to move and trigger the Booming blade. Fear or turn undead (for undead) will likewise trigger it, and an OA...

[bendking]

Again, you’re comparing between classes for some reason. I’m not sure why. The question is whether you would make a single booming attack or 2 attacks with the same character (all else equal).

You’re over complicating the analysis here.

And you don’t HAVE to calculate hit chance, but you can - that does provide an important additional layer of data.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the result. Booming remains about 0.5 dpr better than 2 attacks from 0 AC through 25 AC. At 0 it’s 0.46 and at 25 the difference drops to about 0.3

The difference evens out at a +5 damage mod. And turns in favor of two attacks at +6. At level 11 it swings back to BB quite a bit unless you have 3 attacks.

If you want to discuss booming blade builds vs extra attack builds that is (should be) a separate discussion that I’m not particularly interested in having.

Emphasis mine.
It seems you did not understand my point. Booming Blade does NOT have 0.5 DPR advantage because you are doing this comparison on a highly unoptimized martial that has no apparent modifiers on their attack besides their ability modifier, which is not a fair comparison to make since most martial have quite a bit of modifiers going on (CBE, SS, PAM, GWM).
Just to put a nail in this coffin, I'll provide you with the numbers for using Booming Blade with these builds (even though they don't have access to it), just like you're asking, at 11th level, which as you said yourself is favorable for Booming Blade:

Extra Attack
Paladin (GWF, PAM, GWM, Improved Divine Smite): 39.74
Barbarian (PAM, GWM, Reckless): 40

Booming Blade (50% chance)
Paladin (GWF, PAM, GWM, Improved Divine Smite): 36
Barbarian (PAM, GWM, Reckless): 32.6

Booming Blade (10% chance)
Paladin (GWF, PAM, GWM, Improved Divine Smite): 32
Barbarian (PAM, GWM, Reckless): 30.5

Keep in mind that the 50% activation chance on the rider is very generous since these classes have no way of disengaging without using their action.
They should rightfully have more of a 10% activation chance or lower, since the only way it's going to activate is if the enemy they're locked in melee with has no qualms triggering an AoO.

Now, I've clearly shown you that the DPR with Booming Blade is significantly lower than Extra Attack, as is to be expected.
You're welcome to show me math that proves otherwise, but I'd like to see you approach my actual argument, which is, again, that martial don't use Extra Attack in the box, they have a bunch of class features, sub-class features, and feats that boost their melee, thus making Extra Attack much more worthwhile than Booming Blade due to the multiplication of modifiers.

[Gtdead]

Again, you’re comparing between classes for some reason. I’m not sure why. The question is whether you would make a single booming attack or 2 attacks with the same character (all else equal).

You’re over complicating the analysis here.



While he did overcomplicate the analysis, his original points stands. Slapping a 50% chance on the rider is in no way realistic for any build that isn't optimized for it and need certain conditions to apply, being big stupid melee targets that still haven't engaged and are near enough so you can reliably reach them on the first round. If all these conditions apply, you can argue that BB has 100% chance to apply (which again could be contested) but at least you have a good reason for the analysis. If these conditions don't apply, the only reason for a melee enemy to take the rider is if the threatened party member disengaged for some reason, or died.

[bendking]

While he did overcomplicate the analysis, his original points stands. Slapping a 50% chance on the rider is in no way realistic for any build that isn't optimized for it and need certain conditions to apply, being big stupid melee targets that still haven't engaged and are near enough so you can reliably reach them on the first round. If all these conditions apply, you can argue that BB has 100% chance to apply (which again could be contested) but at least you have a good reason for the analysis. If these conditions don't apply, the only reason for a melee enemy to take the rider is if the threatened party member disengaged for some reason, or died.

I might have gone overboard, but the point isn't only that the 50% is unrealistic. Even if I concede that 50%, it doesn't reach the DPR of Extra Attack on decently built martials (aka martials that have more than just their Ability Modifier boosting their damage).
And again, none of my comparisons even used class and sub-class abilities, which would further tip the favor for Extra Attack which multiplies these resources, i.e. Rage gets double the value from Extra Attack than it does from Booming Blade.

[CMCC]

While he did overcomplicate the analysis, his original points stands. Slapping a 50% chance on the rider is in no way realistic for any build that isn't optimized for it and need certain conditions to apply, being big stupid melee targets that still haven't engaged and are near enough so you can reliably reach them on the first round. If all these conditions apply, you can argue that BB has 100% chance to apply (which again could be contested) but at least you have a good reason for the analysis. If these conditions don't apply, the only reason for a melee enemy to take the rider is if the threatened party member disengaged for some reason, or died.

This is a fair critique and if you would like to apply your own percentage chance of success based on your own experience or builds - that’s open for you to do.

I’m simply using Treantmonk’s number because I trust his analysis on this one. There are ways to push that percentage upward towards 100 or down to almost 0 if used improperly.

[bendking]

This is a fair critique and if you would like to apply your own percentage chance of success based on your own experience or builds - that’s open for you to do.

I’m simply using Treantmonk’s number because I trust his analysis on this one. There are ways to push that percentage upward towards 100 or down to almost 0 if used improperly.

Just making sure that you saw my previous reply because I showed that even if I play on your exact terms, while heavily conceding points that I don't need to, the math is still in my favor.

[cutlery]

I’m simply using Treantmonk’s number because I trust his analysis on this one. There are ways to push that percentage upward towards 100 or down to almost 0 if used improperly.

I'd say his guesstimate of 50% is an excellent reason to not trust anything else he says.

[CMCC]

I'd say his guesstimate of 50% is an excellent reason to not trust anything else he says.

What’s a better average that encompasses all types of play/DMs/styles? 50% is completely reasonable - when used in this context.


Just making sure that you saw my previous reply because I showed that even if I play on your exact terms, while heavily conceding points that I don't need to, the math is still in my favor.

You’re over complicating your analysis, so it won’t be helpful for me to address those points.

The simple answer is that from levels 5-10 a damage modifier of +6 or more tilts in favor of 2 attacks. I believe that number rises to +9 at level 11-17 (don’t quote me - I don’t have the calc in front of me).

Adjust 50% rider succes how you see fit to get slightly different numbers.

[cutlery]

What’s a better average that encompasses all types of play/DMs/styles? 50% is completely reasonable - when used in this context.

Why don't we add opportunity attack damage to DPR calculations? Same problem - they aren't reliable sources of damage. Further, many of the situations where you'd most want that damage (say, fighting a Froghemoth) they aren't likely to trigger.

The guaranteed damage from them alone is quite nice. The rider is cool when it happens.

[CMCC]

Why don't we add opportunity attack damage to DPR calculations? Same problem - they aren't reliable sources of damage. Further, many of the situations where you'd most want that damage (say, fighting a Froghemoth) they aren't likely to trigger.

The guaranteed damage from them alone is quite nice. The rider is cool when it happens.

It’s a key piece of the spell - not an additional event triggered by the use of a reaction that may or may not be available to you based on what else you did on someone else’s turn. The rider just happens. And it’s a key function to the spell.

I see your point, and it’s a good one, but I think ignoring half of what the spell does isn’t the correct answer here.

[cutlery]

It’s a key piece of the spell

That requires willing movement (in the case of BB) or positioning (in the case of GFB).

The riders do something, and you'd pick one of the cantrips based on which rider you want, but you can't count on that damage.

50% of 1-4d8 that varies from 0% to 100% based on the encounter along dimensions entirely different from armor class is too speculative a figure.

Over the entire career of a character, it might be 30% or it might be 70%, and in particular encounters it could easily be 0%.

Best to plan for that 0%.

[MaxWilson]

SCAG not XGtE, and if rumours are true we can expect an errata to the old versions.
Yes it can be ignored for home games, but organised play will require the latest versions, and online directories will also be updated to match the latest version.

Why? They didn't errata SCAG when they printed a new, different Swashbuckler in Xanathar's. Why would they errata SCAG when they print a new Bladesinger/Booming Blade in Tasha's?

They might or they might not.


Why don't we add opportunity attack damage to DPR calculations? Same problem - they aren't reliable sources of damage. Further, many of the situations where you'd most want that damage (say, fighting a Froghemoth) they aren't likely to trigger.

The guaranteed damage from them alone is quite nice. The rider is cool when it happens.

In many cases we actually should add opportunity attack damage, because it's easy to achieve, but we don't because acknowledging that damage doesn't fit the Internet D&D conventions. For example, it's almost always a bad idea for a monster to spend time fighting conjured animals from a Shepherd Druid: no matter how bad taking an opportunity attack is, spending a whole round of actions to kill 1-2 animal meatshields is worse, so adding one opportunity attack per combat to each conjured animal is probably more correct than ignoring opportunity attacks.

Ditto for a Beastmaster ranger's pet, which can move/Dodge/opportunity attack freely with no action cost to the Beastmaster, or a Necromancer's zombies.

[Gtdead]

Why? They didn't errata SCAG when they printed a new, different Swashbuckler in Xanathar's. Why would they errata SCAG when they print a new Bladesinger/Booming Blade in Tasha's?

They might or they might not.



In many cases we actually should add opportunity attack damage, because it's easy to achieve, but we don't because acknowledging that damage doesn't fit the Internet D&D conventions. For example, it's almost always a bad idea for a monster to spend time fighting conjured animals from a Shepherd Druid: no matter how bad taking an opportunity attack is, spending a whole round of actions to kill 1-2 animal meatshields is worse, so adding one opportunity attack per combat to each conjured animal is probably more correct than ignoring opportunity attacks.

Ditto for a Beastmaster ranger's pet, which can move/Dodge/opportunity attack freely with no action cost to the Beastmaster, or a Necromancer's zombies.

This is a great point that I actually have never experienced (I have only ever played with ranged summons). I still think that there is a good case for the enemy to stay and kill the animals if he can really benefit from the half cover they provide but I agree that taking the AoOs is a sound decision.

[JackPhoenix]

Mediocre arrays are neither crippling nor uncommon. 13, 10, 13, 9, 12, 12 isn't fantastic but it's well above the human norm

Funny thing: That array would be grounds for rerolling in 3e RAW.

[sithlordnergal]

OTOH we all know how well a negative restrictions went over with Druids and Necromancy in 5e, and Paladins historically. And Races. Not to mention spell casting itself. :smallamused:

Well, I mean the problem with those negative restrictions are that they're all fluff. "A Druid won't use metal armor because its taboo"...why is the book trying to make assumptions on my character's personality? Not even the Paladin Oaths are restrictive like that. I'd be fine if there was an actual, mechanical thing preventing Necromancy and Druids wearing metal armor. Heck, I started in 3.5, back then you lost all class abilities and spells if you wore metal armor as a Druid, and I had no issue with it. But as soon as something is fluff, then it has no place in my character creation and should be ignored when it doesn't fit.

If you made a mechanical reason for Wizards and Sorcerers to not wear armor, then it might go a bit better. Maybe bring back the 3.5 percent chance of having a spell fizzle while wearing armor?

[MaxWilson]

Funny thing: That array would be grounds for rerolling in 3e RAW.

That says more about 3E than 5E.

[sithlordnergal]

Therefore?

Therefore...that array you suggested is absolutely terrible. I'd personally give a player a free full reroll if they ended up with an array like that, and if I had that array I'd either ask for a full reroll, or try to kill that character as quickly as possible. Its technically usable, and not the worst array I've seen....that honor is reserved for a 3.5 game where, I kid you not, my total modifier from all my stats ended up being a -4. X_X First time the DM ever had to use their homebrew rule of "If the total for all your ability score modifiers is less than 0 you get to reroll". But that is very much a nearly unplayable array.

[Valmark]

Therefore...that array you suggested is absolutely terrible. I'd personally give a player a free full reroll if they ended up with an array like that, and if I had that array I'd either ask for a full reroll, or try to kill that character as quickly as possible. Its technically usable, and not the worst array I've seen....that honor is reserved for a 3.5 game where, I kid you not, my total modifier from all my stats ended up being a -4. X_X First time the DM ever had to use their homebrew rule of "If the total for all your ability score modifiers is less than 0 you get to reroll". But that is very much a nearly unplayable array.

To be fair, 3.5's standards don't apply to 5e. Stats got much higher and spellcasters were required to have high scores or they couldn't cast higher level spells at all.

[sithlordnergal]

To be fair, 3.5's standards don't apply to 5e. Stats got much higher and spellcasters were required to have high scores or they couldn't cast higher level spells at all.

That's true, which is something I like about 5e. No more needed a 20 in your primary stat at level 1 if you just want to be competent at level 10. X_X

[cutlery]

I don't think that array is unplayable, but having a player with that array while another has something like 16,17,12,10,8,9 isn't fair.

[sithlordnergal]

I don't think that array is unplayable, but having a player with that array while another has something like 16,17,12,10,8,9 isn't fair.

Ehh, I wouldn't be able to play a character with that poor of an array...I'd ask for a reroll, or try to retire/kill the character as fast as possible to get a reroll. Or if that we the array everyone was using, I'd play in a different game.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think that array is unplayable, but having a player with that array while another has something like 16,17,12,10,8,9 isn't fair.

It mostly depends upon whether your table is the type that locks players into a given PC for years at a time or not. If I sometimes play my 13, 13, 11, 9, 10, 12 Fighter and sometimes play my 16, 14, 11, 9, 13, 10 Bardlock, and the 16, 17, 12, 10, 8, 9 Cavalier's player sometimes plays his 14, 14, 14, 12, 6, 4 Hexvoker, I'm likely to have more fun with my Fighter than I would if I had to play only that PC for 3 years straight. (In fact I'd probably hate playing any PC for months or years at a time, even with triple 18s and a terrific concept and backstory, because that may mean the campaign's pace is too slow, dragging on without resolution.)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ehh, I wouldn't be able to play a character with that poor of an array...I'd ask for a reroll, or try to retire/kill the character as fast as possible to get a reroll. Or if that we the array everyone was using, I'd play in a different game.

Something that I generally find myself disappointed at is the idea that when a table is rolling for stats, it's never "we should move the bad array up" it's always "the best array is a problem we need to fix"

When I first started running games, I tried to insist on point buy because I wanted to avoid having to make either decision. Players didn't like that, so we go with "if your array is real bad, reroll".

I use a baseline similar to what Matt Colville has dubbed the "heroic statline" or something. Automatic reroll if you have nothing above 14 or if 2 or more of your stats are under 10. This pretty much guarantees they have a better stat array than standard.

[cutlery]

It mostly depends upon whether your table is the type that locks players into a given PC for years at a time or not. If I sometimes play my 13, 13, 11, 9, 10, 12 Fighter and sometimes play my 16, 14, 11, 9, 13, 10 Bardlock, and the 16, 17, 12, 10, 8, 9 Cavalier's player sometimes plays his 14, 14, 14, 12, 6, 4 Hexvoker, I'm likely to have more fun with my Fighter than I would if I had to play only that PC for 3 years straight. (In fact I'd probably hate playing any PC for months or years at a time, even with triple 18s and a terrific concept and backstory, because that may mean the campaign's pace is too slow, dragging on without resolution.)

I've not yet found a table that is comfortable with me swapping characters that much - it would work wonders for my tendency to commit cinematic glorious suicide maneuvers.



Something that I generally find myself disappointed at is the idea that when a table is rolling for stats, it's never "we should move the bad array up" it's always "the best array is a problem we need to fix"

When I first started running games, I tried to insist on point buy because I wanted to avoid having to make either decision. Players didn't like that, so we go with "if your array is real bad, reroll".

I use a baseline similar to what Matt Colville has dubbed the "heroic statline" or something. Automatic reroll if you have nothing above 14 or if 2 or more of your stats are under 10. This pretty much guarantees they have a better stat array than standard.



Something I saw on reddit that sounded neat was this: get the group together, everyone rolls for stats under the watchful eyes of the party, then the group votes on which array is official, and everyone uses that array.

Another option is this same thing only I backconvert that array to pointbuy points, and folks get that much pointbuy (with maximums moved up to 18; and the cost increase progression extended).

[Mr Adventurer]

To be fair, 3.5's standards don't apply to 5e.

No? The 'default array' in 3.5e costs 27 points under the 5e point buy costs.

[nothinglord]

Something I saw on reddit that sounded neat was this: get the group together, everyone rolls for stats under the watchful eyes of the party, then the group votes on which array is official, and everyone uses that array.

The better option is for everyone to pick which of the rolled arrays they want. I might be okay with an 18, 18, 17, 8, 7, 6 array for my mentally deficient Barbarian but that doesn't mean others want it. The Wizard might want the 18, 14, 11, 11, 10, 8 array, and the Paladin might want the 15, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10 array, and they each don't want the other's.

[Lord Vukodlak]

No? The 'default array' in 3.5e costs 27 points under the 5e point buy costs.

And 27 points is the default amount in 5e point buy.

[Mr Adventurer]

And 27 points is the default amount in 5e point buy.

Yes, exactly :).

[cutlery]

The better option is for everyone to pick which of the rolled arrays they want. I might be okay with an 18, 18, 17, 8, 7, 6 array for my mentally deficient Barbarian but that doesn't mean others want it. The Wizard might want the 18, 14, 11, 11, 10, 8 array, and the Paladin might want the 15, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10 array, and they each don't want the other's.

I think modified point buy is better than that, even.

Let them sell down to 6 and buy up to 18, and raise the value from 27 based on heroic you'd like for it to be (I'm not convinced more than 27 points is really necessary).

Letting them pick which rolled array assumes they all have similar levels of system mastery - and that's not been the case at the tables I play at.

[Valmark]

No? The 'default array' in 3.5e costs 27 points under the 5e point buy costs.

Which... Doesn't have anything to do with what I said, I believe.

[Xervous]

Clearly the design intent is that ability scores don’t matter much if they’re keying more things off your proficiency bonus.

[Mr Adventurer]

Which... Doesn't have anything to do with what I said, I believe.

It's not right to make a blanket statement about comparing standards being inappropriate when both games have the same starting values.

[Valmark]

It's not right to make a blanket statement about comparing standards being inappropriate when both games have the same starting values.

Which is why I didn't speak about starting values but about maxes/weights. It wasn't even about standard arrays, it was about lower scores then that.

[MaxWilson]

It's not right to make a blanket statement about comparing standards being inappropriate when both games have the same starting values.

When I take out all the negatives, this looks quite a lot like a claim that "having similar starting values is sufficient to establish equivalency between attributes two systems," which of course is nonsense. There is zero reason to believe that rolling an Int 16 vs. 14 has the same weight in both systems, especially when (per JackPhoenix's assertion) 3E has official stat minimums which trigger automatic rerolling, and 5E does not. That's a pretty strong clue that stats matter less in 5E, and the fact that 3E PCs are expected to boost their stats well over 20 is another clue.

[Dork_Forge]

When I take out all the negatives, this looks quite a lot like a claim that "having similar starting values is sufficient to establish equivalency between attributes two systems," which of course is nonsense. There is zero reason to believe that rolling an Int 16 vs. 14 has the same weight in both systems, especially when (per JackPhoenix's assertion) 3E has official stat minimums which trigger automatic rerolling, and 5E does not. That's a pretty strong clue that stats matter less in 5E, and the fact that 3E PCs are expected to boost their stats well over 20 is another clue.

Couldn't you also draw the conclusion that since the maximum is lower, each individual +1 in a stat is therefore much more impactful?

[Mr Adventurer]

When I take out all the negatives, this looks quite a lot like a claim that "having similar starting values is sufficient to establish equivalency between attributes two systems," which of course is nonsense. There is zero reason to believe that rolling an Int 16 vs. 14 has the same weight in both systems, especially when (per JackPhoenix's assertion) 3E has official stat minimums which trigger automatic rerolling, and 5E does not. That's a pretty strong clue that stats matter less in 5E, and the fact that 3E PCs are expected to boost their stats well over 20 is another clue.

You are attributing to me a statement just as absolute as the one with which I initially took issue. That is uncharitable at best.

You then argue the position you have invented.

I do not hold that position.

Further, we don't need any "indication" like the ones you list. Bounded accuracy tells us the whole story as it is.

[MaxWilson]

You are attributing to me a statement just as absolute as the one with which I initially took issue. That is uncharitable at best.

You then argue the position you have invented.

I do not hold that position.

Further, we don't need any "indication" like the ones you list. Bounded accuracy tells us the whole story as it is.

Great, then we're done here. Thanks for the clear denial. Note BTW that I never "attributed to [you]" that statement, but I'm still glad you denied holding that position because honestly I wasn't sure what you were trying to say.


Couldn't you also draw the conclusion that since the maximum is lower, each individual +1 in a stat is therefore much more impactful?

[thinks] I don't quite follow. Let me retrace:

The subject under consideration is "are [arrays with 13s and 14s] unworkably bad in 5E?", and someone apparently intended to argue that "since a 13s array would qualify for automatic rerolling in 3e, it is therefore unworkably bad." Since 5E has no stat maximums, and it also separates stats from ASIs, I conjecture that it's reasonable to suppose that rolling a 13 as your high stat puts you permanently 4-12 levels "behind" on your spellcasting DCs relative to someone who rolled a 14, 16, or 18. Agreed? From this perspective I can understand why 3E might have RAW about mandatory rerolls.

Now, I can certainly see someone arguing that rolling a low stat in 5E puts you temporarily "behind" on your spellcasting DCs in 5E, but because 5E has stat maximums, it's a temporarily penalty, not a permanent one (unless you choose to make it permanent by valuing other things more). However, this is a different argument than the one you seem to be trying to make, Dork_Forge, so let's set that aside for now.

I think the argument you are trying to make is that given two characters with the exact same builds and choices made during gameplay, something about having stats capped at 20 ("the maximum is lower") leads to variance in rolled stats being even more important. I don't quite follow that argument, frankly (please explain in more detail?) but in any case I think it's founded on a faulty premise: they SHOULDN'T have the same builds and shouldn't make the game choices, because they have different opportunity costs. If you roll Str 13, Cavalier or Ancestor Barb is a pretty good choice for example (as is Moon Druid) because it lets you contribute substantially to party success without relying that much on stats. Sure, you're giving up GWM damage, but GWM damage wasn't going to be that great for you anyway, so the opportunity cost is small. However, if you roll Str 18, GWM damage is much more compelling, and the opportunity cost is larger.

In abstract terms, if strategy A has value 5 + Str bonus, and strategy B has a fixed value of 7, then a Str 18 PC is valuable, but so is a Str 10 PC. My observation is that 5E behaves like this, therefore "bad" stats aren't crippling, and it looks to me like you're trying to argue that bad stats are crippling w/rt strategy A, but that isn't enough to prove that bad stats are crippling w/rt the game as a whole.

That's what I think you are trying to argue, but maybe I am misunderstanding. It would help me if you could make your argument explicitly though, ideally in the form of (even an informal) logical proof that we can look at step by step. What therefore what follows?

[cutlery]

but in any case I think it's founded on a faulty premise: they SHOULDN'T have the same builds and shouldn't make the game choices, because they have different opportunity costs.

I'd argue this is excellent reason not to used rolled stats unless every player has the same rolled array.

Players shouldn't have different sets of limitations on character design choice (and thus, play style) thrust upon them arbitrarily.

[MaxWilson]

I'd argue this is excellent reason not to used rolled stats unless every player has the same rolled array.

Players shouldn't have different sets of limitations on character design choice (and thus, play style) thrust upon them arbitrarily.

Well, that's definitely one way to play. We've already established that your DM doesn't allow character trees or even PC retirement, only suicide, and all I can say is that your table is missing out of some of the best parts of old-school D&D.

[x3n0n]

Well, that's definitely one way to play. We've already established that your DM doesn't allow character trees or even PC retirement, only suicide, and all I can say is that your table is missing out of some of the best parts of old-school D&D.

I do think that is a difference in approach.

It seems to me that most old-school players are used to having characters die, frequently, especially at low levels, and to having their stats come from a random source. If a character's random beginning went poorly, oh well, make a new one.

I think this edition does a lot more to turn character generation into an act of personal expression: the characters I create "are me" in some way. Whoever makes the "best" characters is "winning". Point-buy stabilizes that playing field, and also provides a useful "statistical competence" baseline for published adventures to work from. And if my characters "are me"and I only have one or two campaigns, each of which is lengthy and expects a stable party, then I gosh darn better have a good character to "be" through each campaign.

[MaxWilson]

I do think that is a difference in approach.

(A) It seems to me that most old-school players are used to having characters die, frequently, especially at low levels, and to having their stats come from a random source. If a character's random beginning went poorly, oh well, make a new one.

(B) I think this edition does a lot more to turn character generation into an act of personal expression: the characters I create "are me" in some way. Whoever makes the "best" characters is "winning". Point-buy stabilizes that playing field, and also provides a useful "statistical competence" baseline for published adventures to work from. And if my characters "are me"and I only have one or two campaigns, each of which is lengthy and expects a stable party, then I gosh darn better have a good character to "be" through each campaign.

(A) It's not JUST death though that makes having a binder full of PCs rewarding. It's also things like playing one adventure at a time, with a given PC (e.g. Nox, an elven necromancer) and then wanting a change of pace and bringing a different PC to the next adventure (e.g. Lux, Nox's sister, a vehemently-anti-undead Vengeance Paladin, who BTW destroys all of Nox's leftover skeletons as soon as she shows up).

Or deciding that a given PC's motivation for adventuring is now completed (Raxor is a 9th level Thief with enough money to live the rest of his life in luxury) and retiring that PC, instead of feeling compelled to find a reason why Raxor would jump in a volcano or something.

I feel like old-school adventuring is more oriented around providing narrative satisfaction and closure frequently, in small packages (adventures), which may gain you some treasure and perhaps a level or even two. Playing the same PC in multiple adventures in the same setting is called a "campaign." Chains of modules sometimes exist where one adventure leads to another, but like novels they each still try to have individual closure.

Adventure paths like those WotC publishes take the opposite approach: drop a big "save the world" problem on the PCs at level 1, and expect them to be level 10 or 15 by the time they solve the problem, and then retire them and start new PCs. Today's DMs tend to call these things "campaigns" but to me it just looks like a really long adventure with a slow payoff.

(B) I agree, Expression (using your PC to make a statement to other players and the world about who you are) is very big with WotC and with many of today's 5E players in general. And I think you're absolutely right that if you're trying to send a message to the world, letting dice have influence over what constraints you're operating under when you create that expression might be counterproductive.

On the other hand, I really don't care about sending a message/Expression, either as a player or a DM. Of the Eight Types of Fun (https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/), my games are primarily about Fantasy, Challenge, Discovery, and Fellowship. I'm trying to get better at supporting Narrative and even Abnegation/Submission. I don't care at all about Sensory Pleasure and Expression, and if you're looking for those things you should look for a different DM, especially if you don't really care about infinite detail and self-consistent wolds (Fantasy) and being asked to solve genuinely tough problems (Challenge), which together with respecting player agency are core priorities of my D&D games.

[JackPhoenix]

Therefore...that array you suggested is absolutely terrible. I'd personally give a player a free full reroll if they ended up with an array like that, and if I had that array I'd either ask for a full reroll, or try to kill that character as quickly as possible. Its technically usable, and not the worst array I've seen....that honor is reserved for a 3.5 game where, I kid you not, my total modifier from all my stats ended up being a -4. X_X First time the DM ever had to use their homebrew rule of "If the total for all your ability score modifiers is less than 0 you get to reroll". But that is very much a nearly unplayable array.

That's not a homebrew rule. It's, as I've mentioned before, existing rule in the PHB. Also, if your highest ability score is 13 or less.


When I take out all the negatives, this looks quite a lot like a claim that "having similar starting values is sufficient to establish equivalency between attributes two systems," which of course is nonsense. There is zero reason to believe that rolling an Int 16 vs. 14 has the same weight in both systems, especially when (per JackPhoenix's assertion) 3E has official stat minimums which trigger automatic rerolling, and 5E does not. That's a pretty strong clue that stats matter less in 5E, and the fact that 3E PCs are expected to boost their stats well over 20 is another clue.

Unfortunately, that conclusion is wrong: Attribute values matter MORE in 5e than in 3e. While the range is (a lot) smaller in 5e, there are also very few (or no) ways to make up for a low score, besides the RNG of a dice roll.... which, generally, matters more in 5e than ability score anyway, while it may be made entirely irrelevant in 3e if you stack enough bonuses.

[cutlery]

Well, that's definitely one way to play. We've already established that your DM doesn't allow character trees or even PC retirement, only suicide, and all I can say is that your table is missing out of some of the best parts of old-school D&D.

Different tables; one doesn't care much at all about replacing characters, provided it isn't mid session (which seems fair). I've done a number of college town tables, too, where death that actually sticks is rare.

To me, if you die, you die - but not everyone is ok with permadeath, to the point of finding people willing to cast spells that cost more than the character's net worth at level 3 to bring them back. That seems a bit off to me, but I see it frequently enough that it doesn't surprise me.

The same sorts of DMs that aren't keen on character retirement aren't, I'd wager, keen on a stable of characters you can swap to session to session as it suits you.

[Bardon]

So - Booming Blade? The ongoing discussion looks to have enough legs to warrant a new thread entirely.

[MaxWilson]

So - Booming Blade? The ongoing discussion looks to have enough legs to warrant a new thread entirely.

Well, I'm not going to keep arguing with Dork_Forge about whether minimal investment by a Fighter ought to result in more damage than minimal investment by a wizard. I dislike that aspect of Booming Blade; clearly other people love it.

[Tanarii]

I do think that is a difference in approach.

It seems to me that most old-school players are used to having characters die, frequently, especially at low levels, and to having their stats come from a random source. If a character's random beginning went poorly, oh well, make a new one.

Also if the characters random beginning went well, oh well, they're still going to die anyway. Make a new one.

The most memorable to me was the only Str 18/00 character I've ever seen going down in the first few sessions. The player was ... distraught.

[Dork_Forge]

[thinks] I don't quite follow. Let me retrace:

The subject under consideration is "are [arrays with 13s and 14s] unworkably bad in 5E?", and someone apparently intended to argue that "since a 13s array would qualify for automatic rerolling in 3e, it is therefore unworkably bad." Since 5E has no stat maximums, and it also separates stats from ASIs, I conjecture that it's reasonable to suppose that rolling a 13 as your high stat puts you permanently 4-12 levels "behind" on your spellcasting DCs relative to someone who rolled a 14, 16, or 18. Agreed? From this perspective I can understand why 3E might have RAW about mandatory rerolls.

By separate stats from ASIs do you just mean that you can choose between a stat bump and a feat?

And yes rolling a lower stat puts you x number of ASIs behind.


Now, I can certainly see someone arguing that rolling a low stat in 5E puts you temporarily "behind" on your spellcasting DCs in 5E, but because 5E has stat maximums, it's a temporarily penalty, not a permanent one (unless you choose to make it permanent by valuing other things more). However, this is a different argument than the one you seem to be trying to make, Dork_Forge, so let's set that aside for now.

I have no idea how previous system's stats worked, they just didn't have caps? That seems ripe for silliness. Thinks I'd like to highlight at this point:

-You're equating a lower stat just to lower DCs (and I'll presume you also mean to hit), that is not the full extent a +1 has on any given character

-You seem to think that becuase you can catch up eventually that it doesn't matter that you're behind to begin with, I challenge that because the time you spend behind matters and can lead to the character never catching up, because they died.
-ASIs are so few and far between in 5e for most classes that I think you're trivialising the catching up part, especially since the scope or natural life cycle of a game can end well before you've made up the deficit


I think the argument you are trying to make is that given two characters with the exact same builds and choices made during gameplay, something about having stats capped at 20 ("the maximum is lower") leads to variance in rolled stats being even more important. I don't quite follow that argument, frankly (please explain in more detail?) but in any case I think it's founded on a faulty premise: they SHOULDN'T have the same builds and shouldn't make the game choices, because they have different opportunity costs. If you roll Str 13, Cavalier or Ancestor Barb is a pretty good choice for example (as is Moon Druid) because it lets you contribute substantially to party success without relying that much on stats. Sure, you're giving up GWM damage, but GWM damage wasn't going to be that great for you anyway, so the opportunity cost is small. However, if you roll Str 18, GWM damage is much more compelling, and the opportunity cost is larger.

The nature of bounded accuracy means that every +1 is valuable because there's so few ways of gaining those +s, so in 5e +1 Str is worth a hell of a lot more than in whatever previous system without a cap. Other posters have also touched on this.

I don't think that two characters with vastly different stats should play the same way and I don't know at what point I gave you that idea, but I thought that I made the Cavalier point clear already:

-The Cavalier is not dependent on Str to deal damage as they're primary focus, but the can only mark things that they hit so the lower your attacking stat, the less you actually hit and the less you can fulfill your tanking role. Separately the amount of uses for one of their abilities keys off of their Str modifier, this mechanic is rife in 5e, by having a lower stat you're not just making a less effective character, you're getting less mileage out of your abilities. Oh and I had to check this since I'm less familiar, but the Ancestor Barbarian's ability is literally the same, no hit, no effect.

The Moon Druid is irrelevant, your stats don't matter because you're using the stats of something else, if anything you're just saying 'stats are important, here seek out better stats.'



In abstract terms, if strategy A has value 5 + Str bonus, and strategy B has a fixed value of 7, then a Str 18 PC is valuable, but so is a Str 10 PC. My observation is that 5E behaves like this, therefore "bad" stats aren't crippling, and it looks to me like you're trying to argue that bad stats are crippling w/rt strategy A, but that isn't enough to prove that bad stats are crippling w/rt the game as a whole.

Your focus on this seems to be very singular and missing very improtant things.


That's what I think you are trying to argue, but maybe I am misunderstanding. It would help me if you could make your argument explicitly though, ideally in the form of (even an informal) logical proof that we can look at step by step. What therefore what follows?

I'll start by pointing out something crucial, presumably if you've rolled a Str 13 Barbarian, Cavalier or whatever else that is Str based, then presumably 13 is your highest stat. So the rest of your statline is 13 or less, you are bad across the board, including your Con, and therefore hp. You can still have fun in roleplay, you can enjoy the challenge of playing with low stats, but it is without question that for the most part you will be less effective (and below what the game expects of you) than just having adequate stats.

Sure, a statline mixed of 0s and +1s can be above the real life human average, or the commoner average or whatever, but we don't play D&D to be average or slightly above it, we play it to be adventurers.

If you have that abyssmal, and something that yields significantly below the standard array is that, then you will hit less, the bad guys will save more, you'll fail saves and skill checks more often than you ought to. This is by default a group game and in a group where everyone else has more normal statlines, or if rolling even higher than average, then a lot of people will start to feel frustrated by the comparative success and failure rates.

Then there's the use of stats outside of a D20:

-Lower Con means less hp, even +1 hp a level matters, just ask the Con 0 Wizard in my game that despite being at level 5 is still in danger of instadeath from a level appropriate crit.
-Number of uses are frequently tied to stats: Bardic Inspiration, the Warding attack, War Priest BA attack and so on. The lower your stat the less you get to do what your choice of character is meant to be good at
-Bonuses tied to classes that key off of stats: A Paladin's aura, the initiative bump for four different subclasses, the channel divinities of multiple Oaths, the hp of companion creatures
-Prepared casters just flat out get less spells to use
-Multiclassing and some feats have minimum prereqs, it sucks to have a build idea and have stats so bad you literally cannot build them.
-You will die to Str reducing monsters faster, niche yes, but real.

You can still do things whilst having bad stats, but you are undoubtedly a less effective character, in nearly every single avenue of the game, in comparison to someone with average stats.

That was a bit waffly but hope I have made my argument more clear.

[Valmark]

I have no idea how previous system's stats worked, they just didn't have caps? That seems ripe for silliness.


In 3.5 you didn't have caps and numbers were much higher for everybody (PCs and monsters) and there were indeed legal ways to get absurd things like infinite strenght.

Something notable is that in 3.5 you couldn't cast a spell if your casting stat wasn't equal to 10+the level of the spell- this made higher stats much more important then they are in 5e, especially because you got... What, five +1s in your whole career? If the DM didn't give you a stat-enhancing magical item you literally couldn't start with a 13 and hope to cast the best spells, unless you got some stuff from more obscure books. There is a reason if the magic-market was assumed in 3.5.

Also, since numbers could get much higher, you REALLY needed to boost your DCs if you wanted them to be useful. In addition, spellcasters got bonus slots from higher stats which was more important since each prepared spell was locked into a specific slot (unless you were, for example, a sorcerer which works like 5es one).

Martials had less problems but they did need higher stats too to get decent hits in- especially because aside from specific classes dex-based people still needed strenght to damage.

And this is probably too long of a post for such a minor thing, but I wanted to explain it. I don't remember enough about 4e to talk about it (and I haven't played previous editions).

Also also, point buy went from... What, 6 to 18? Maybe the minimum was 8, but the maximum was surely 18. So starting with a 20 was easy for everybody if you wanted so.

[Mr Adventurer]

Great, then we're done here.

Yes. I was rather wondering why you chose to start at all.


In 3.5 you didn't have caps and numbers were much higher for everybody (PCs and monsters) and there were indeed legal ways to get absurd things like infinite strenght.

Legal, but not expected. Most tables wouldn't accept the infinite loops.

[ff7hero]

Legal, but not expected. Most tables wouldn't accept the infinite loops.

Also, technically (afaik), you couldn't get an "infinite strength." Arbitrarily high? Sure, but you have to pick a number.

[Valmark]

Yes. I was rather wondering why you chose to start at all.



Legal, but not expected. Most tables wouldn't accept the infinite loops.
Yeah, I was mentioning one of the possible bull**** builds one could make.

Also, technically (afaik), you couldn't get an "infinite strength." Arbitrarily high? Sure, but you have to pick a number.

True enough- it would be more correct to say 'enough strenght to kill everything in one punch' and tending to infinity (since you keep increasing it as long as you want). I said infinite as a shorter expression.