New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Greywander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Actually fixing Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade

    When Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade were introduced in SCAG, they were controversial spells with several questionable interactions. TCoE updated these spells in an attempt to fix them, but ended up completely breaking them instead.

    So I fixed them myself.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    thoroughlyS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Sinus Concordiae, Selene
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Actually fixing Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade

    I don't think booming blade should work with reach weapons. It makes it practically guarantees you can get the rider damage off, which makes it one of the best damage cantrips.
    Goblin in the Playground

    Most 3.5 thing I've ever seen: RAW on RAW. Love you, Curmudgeon.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    sandmote's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Actually fixing Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade

    As far as I'm aware, a spell focus is usually worth more than 1gp and a melee improvised weapon is a melee weapon, so nothing by RAW actually stops you from using booming blade with a focus anyway.

    If your problem is the cost of the requirement limiting which weapons it applies to, literally just drop the GP cost associated with the material. It solves that problem without also letting you use booming blade with reach weapons.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Greywander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: Actually fixing Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade

    Quote Originally Posted by thoroughlyS View Post
    I don't think booming blade should work with reach weapons. It makes it practically guarantees you can get the rider damage off, which makes it one of the best damage cantrips.
    Mobile with a 5-foot step away after attacking gives the same result. Reach weapons do make this easier to pull off, I'll admit, but it's not as though similar tactics didn't already exist. You also can't trigger it repeatedly without taking an OA, since you'd have to step away from them every round (though, again, Mobile fixes this). Rogues, one of the classes that really likes BB, can also just BA Disengage and step away. I'm just not sure this is as strong as you think it is, and there are other ways to pull it off without a reach weapon. This is also assuming you're the one approaching them and attacking first; if they go first, then they'll have no issue moving up to you.

    I've noticed different people seem to view BB in one of two ways. Some people seem to think the goal is to force the enemy to move so they take the extra damage (based on your post, it sounds like maybe you fall into this camp?). For me, the goal is to force the enemy to stand still, with the damage being a consolation if they move anyway. By forcing the enemy to stand still, you can exert a lot more control over the battlefield, for example stranding a melee enemy somewhere by themselves where they're out of range to attack anyone. Some enemies have ranged weapons or spells, but these might be less optimal than their melee options (if they're not, then you might be better off staying next to them; BB isn't preventing them from engaging you, it's preventing them from running away). Other enemies might decide to take the Dodge action and hope you miss next time, but even then you're forcing them to do nothing for one turn, which helps the party.

    In my opinion, most monsters and even animals aren't stupid. If they know they'll take damage if they move, they'll look at their options and see if they have something they can do without moving. What we want to do is give them nothing but bad options to choose from. Move and take damage, or stay still and do something less than optimal. Which one they choose can also tell us a lot about them, and what tools they have at their disposal, and we can adapt our tactics accordingly.

    I'm also trying to think of what kind of build would use both BB and polearms, and the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is something like a sorcadin with a paladin 2/sorcerer X split. Without Extra Attack, BB becomes optimal, and paladin gives you martial weapon proficiency for polearms. This is a pretty specific build, though. There's not many classes that use polearms and don't get Extra Attack, and the PAM BA attack only works with the Attack action. So a class with Extra Attack and PAM might rather just make normal attacks.

    I'm honestly not that worried about this. It's okay to have powerful niche combos, the problem is when a combo is both a bit too powerful and a bit too easy to build. Also, it just seems strange to not allow attacking at reach if you have a reach weapon; it's not as though casting BB makes your weapon smaller.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandmote View Post
    As far as I'm aware, a spell focus is usually worth more than 1gp and a melee improvised weapon is a melee weapon, so nothing by RAW actually stops you from using booming blade with a focus anyway.

    If your problem is the cost of the requirement limiting which weapons it applies to, literally just drop the GP cost associated with the material. It solves that problem without also letting you use booming blade with reach weapons.
    You're basically just telling me to go back to using the SCAG version (which is what I've been doing, as it's still technically RAW, albeit outdated). Yeah, SCAG version does work with Spell Sniper, but how often did people actually get both of those and use them together? One of the points I'm making here is that the SCAG version is actually better and more functional than Tasha's version.

    Ultimately, this was always a controversial spell, so we just might not be able to agree on how it should be fixed. Should it work with reach weapons? That's really a matter of opinion.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    sandmote's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Actually fixing Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    Mobile with a 5-foot step away after attacking gives the same result. Reach weapons do make this easier to pull off, I'll admit, but it's not as though similar tactics didn't already exist. You also can't trigger it repeatedly without taking an OA, since you'd have to step away from them every round (though, again, Mobile fixes this). Rogues, one of the classes that really likes BB, can also just BA Disengage and step away. I'm just not sure this is as strong as you think it is, and there are other ways to pull it off without a reach weapon. This is also assuming you're the one approaching them and attacking first; if they go first, then they'll have no issue moving up to you.
    I was making the same error myself, because my personal problem with the spells is that they let you stack on everything that applies to a weapon attack, and some of the results bloat damage more than I'm comfortable. My personal change has been to have the spells a melee spell attack using the ability score modifier you use with the material component and deal damage equal to the damage dice of the material component + the spell effect + your the ability score modifier you use with the weapon. This is technically not a melee weapon attack, and so solves my problem. Personally I don't care about issues that arise from twinning BB or the reach gimmicks after that, which is why I missed this.

    To try to formulate my thoughts for treating twinning, reach gimmicks, and/or using a focus as the problem(s):
    The major issue that seems to have prompted the “fix”, however, is that because the weapon is a material component for the spell that isn’t consumed and isn’t costly, it can be replaced with a spell focus instead.
    If this is the case, they failed to solve the problem. Sure, you can no longer "use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus in place of the components specified for a spell," like you normally do, but with the version in Tasha's you can simply use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus as the components specified for the spell.

    This also holds true with your fix, btw. "a weapon you can attack with," should probably be replaced with "a weapon you are proficient with," which would at least require the tavern brawler feat before a focus qualifies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greywander View Post
    You're basically just telling me to go back to using the SCAG version (which is what I've been doing, as it's still technically RAW, albeit outdated).
    I actually meant to go back from your homebrew to the TCoE version.

    You listed the following as trait of the versions in Tasha's:
    It prevents twinning and no longer interacts with Spell Sniper.
    Then you listed this in your explanation of how you fixed things:
    Because these spells now have a range of self and target the weapon, not the enemy, they can’t be twinned and they don’t interact with Spell Sniper at all.
    Per my previous thing where I don't focus about the reach weapon + increased spell range + BB/GFB interaction and missed that change it seemed like extra work to get the same result as simply rescinding the cost from the component in the TCoE version.

    Although if you are going to allow the spells to natively work with reach weapons I'd give the spells a range of touch, seeing as you can't instantaneously attack with someone else's weapon. I think that would be easier to parse than casting a spell on yourself and it having apply to a weapon afterward.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •