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

[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.
Probably mistaken for Lightning Lure.

[cutlery]

It was apparently a miss-understanding according to this page.
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.
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.
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.