Someone at WOTC decided, after who knows how many years of play and who knows how many Errata, that BB and GFB were broken, and decided to "fix" them. Clearly not understanding "unexpected consequences", they nerfed BB with Warcasting and conjured Weapons into the ground, as well as Twinning and Spell Sniper/Polearm setups. There was an immediate hue and cry, an "oh oh" moment at WOTC, and Mr. Crawford started firing off tweets backing off the damage done.
Many playstyles have been destroyed in the past 24 hours, and some of them have been resurrected, but not all.
Ah, I see the problem. Nothing was "nerfed...into the ground". Wizards dared to revisit something published years ago and people began screaming like Chicken Little. If anyone clearly didn't understand, it's everyone who made a knee-jerk reaction to the errata.
You may not be able to twin them, but you can quicken them. That's still pretty good. And, boo hoo, you can't extend the range of the spell with...5 (really 4) martial weapons. It's not a broken combination of abilities, but stripping it away doesn't destroy anything, either. They can always fight with a spear.
It is far worse than you grasp.
Well, don't keep us waiting.
The various impacts have been explained many times in this thread. I am not going to waste my time re-posting them, when you easily scroll through the entire 11 plus pages.
Someone at WOTC decided, after who knows how many years of play and who knows how many Errata, that BB and GFB were broken, and decided to "fix" them. Clearly not understanding "unexpected consequences", they nerfed BB with Warcasting and conjured Weapons into the ground, as well as Twinning and Spell Sniper/Polearm setups. There was an immediate hue and cry, an "oh oh" moment at WOTC, and Mr. Crawford started firing off tweets backing off the damage done.
Many playstyles have been destroyed in the past 24 hours, and some of them have been resurrected, but not all.
Ah, I see the problem. Nothing was "nerfed...into the ground". Wizards dared to revisit something published years ago and people began screaming like Chicken Little. If anyone clearly didn't understand, it's everyone who made a knee-jerk reaction to the errata.
You may not be able to twin them, but you can quicken them. That's still pretty good. And, boo hoo, you can't extend the range of the spell with...5 (really 4) martial weapons. It's not a broken combination of abilities, but stripping it away doesn't destroy anything, either. They can always fight with a spear.
It is far worse than you grasp.
Well, don't keep us waiting.
The various impacts have been explained many times in this thread. I am not going to waste my time re-posting them, when you easily scroll through the entire 11 plus pages.
I could scroll back through the pages, but I was hoping you had some new insights. I have already read them all. I even wrote some of them. And I confirmed my interpretations with Crawford et al. None of this is as bad as you make it out to be. Honestly, I think a lot of you are overreacting.
Booming Blade, previously, could be subject to the metamagic Twinned Spell before while Green-Flame Blade couldn't. Now, neither of them can.
Booming Blade, previously, could be used with War Caster when Green-Flame Blade couldn't. Now, they both can. This is a buff to the other.
Neither can now be used with Spell Sniper to extend their reach with a glaive/halberd, lance, pike, or whip. Only three of those (glaive, halberd, and pike) work with Polearm Master. But two more, the quarterstaff and spear, do.
So I count a nerf to one and a buff to the other; bringing them in line with each other. And then they both receive a nerf that impacts one build. And it's a boring build; if I'm being frank. It requires multiple feats, upwards of three for anyone who wants Great Weapon Master, when most campaigns don't get far enough to make that possible. Or you're *yawn* resigned to playing a variant human fighter. And I've played that character. I still have him on my account here. What made him memorable was how I roleplayed him, not the cookie-cutter nature of his abilities.
And for the Bladesinger, the archetype these cantrips (and two others) were arguably designed for, they're both solidly attractive options now. In fact, limiting their range so they cannot benefit from Spell Sniper makes sense for an archetype that predominantly does not use reach weapons. Seriously, most people just chose a rapier or, occasionally, a scimitar. And maybe they still will, but that's boring, too. The cool thing about being a Bladesinger is you don't need a lot of Dexterity when you're adding studded leather and Intelligence.
TL;DR They look more balanced and, in my opinion, more interesting than before.
I've told my IT department several times, "you should hire a guy on your team that doesn't understand computers, and uses them like the rest of the company does." Why? Because they're always pushing out new features and equipment that looks great to those galaxy brained geeks on paper, but end up being useless and frustrating and breakable in the wild once the normies get our hands on it. When you're making things for players, what matters is how those players will be able to understand and enjoy that product, not your own intentions and understanding of your creation. Every DM should already know this in their heart: it doesn't matter what's in your DM binder or why or what the BBEG would have said if the players asked the right questions, it matters what it all looks like when it hits the table and players start putting their own spin on it.
This whole update just reads to me like it was written by a team that felt pretty smart about their big ideas for game balance for Tabaxi Bladesingers or something, but who didn't really understand how the SCAGtrips were commonly used, what classes get multiclassed with Bladesinger, or what new and unncessary wide-reaching confusion they would be introducing to general understanding of spell range and spell targets with these Booming Blade-centered rulings.
How are you so certain that Booming Blade can't be Twinned now? If you accept JC's reasoning that it can still be War Castered due to only targeting one enemy, then it also only targets one creature for Twinned Spell purposes. That just leaves "doesn't have a range of self" to satisfy, and JC's other tweet seems to suggest that "Self" is just doing the work of a point of origin, while (5-foot radius) is the range. So.... still Twinnable? If not, if "Self" is the range, then how is the target within range when the target is not your "Self"?
It's incoherent. Or, it's coherent, but doesn't work the way that the author thinks it does. Problems.
I've told my IT department several times, "you should hire a guy on your team that doesn't understand computers, and uses them like the rest of the company does." Why? Because they're always pushing out new features and equipment that looks great to those galaxy brained geeks on paper, but end up being useless and frustrating in the wild once the normies get our hands on it. When you're making things for players, what matters is how those players will be able to understand and enjoy that product, not your own intentions and understanding of your creation. Every DM should already know this in their heart: it doesn't matter what's in your DM binder or why or what the BBEG would have said if the players asked the right questions, it matters what it all looks like when it hits the table and players start putting their own spin on it.
This whole update just reads to me like it was written by a team that felt pretty smart about their big ideas for game balance for Tabaxi Bladesingers or something, but who didn't really understand how the SCAGtrips were commonly used, what classes get multiclassed with Blademaster, or what new and unncessary wide-reaching confusion they would be introducing to general understanding of spell range and spell targets with these Booming Blade-centered rulings.
On the contrary, CC, I think most people are unlikely to notice the changes at all. The people who are really freaking out about this are we "galaxy brained geeks" who spend all our free time discussing the minutiae of technical language in this forum. These changes aren't going to make a difference to the "guy on your team who doesn't understand computers."
I think the usual point of entry into Booming Blade is thinking about how cool it would be on a Halberd. From that gateway, people start to try to optimize it by stacking on Sentinel, Cavalier, Metamagic, etc. etc.... but the basic premise of the spell is "this spell wants to be cast in situations where the enemy is tempted to move." That is not 5-foot face-to-face combat, for most monsters.
I think the usual point of entry into Booming Blade is thinking about how cool it would be on a Halberd. From that gateway, people start to try to optimize it by stacking on Sentinel, Cavalier, Metamagic, etc. etc.... but the basic premise of the spell is "this spell wants to be cast in situations where the enemy is tempted to move." That is not 5-foot face-to-face combat, for most monsters.
Your context is woefully limited if you think trying to optimize anything by stacking feats is "usual."
How are you so certain that Booming Blade can't be Twinned now? If you accept JC's reasoning that it can still be War Castered due to only targeting one enemy, then it also only targets one creature for Twinned Spell purposes. That just leaves "doesn't have a range of self" to satisfy, and JC's other tweet seems to suggest that "Self" is just doing the work of a point of origin, while (5-foot radius) is the range. So.... still Twinnable? If not, if "Self" is the range, then how is the target within range when the target is not your "Self"?
It's incoherent. Or, it's coherent, but doesn't work the way that the author thinks it does. Problems.
Every spell, even ones with a point of origin, still has a standard range. Fireball has a range of 150 ft.; a point of origin the spellcaster targets. But it also has an area of effect, a space around the point of origin where the spell does its thing. Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade behave similarly. The range is Self, so the spellcaster serves as the point of origin. There's nothing contradictory in Crawford's tweet. If the spell effect originates from the character's space, then the range of the spell is Self.
How are you so certain that Booming Blade can't be Twinned now? If you accept JC's reasoning that it can still be War Castered due to only targeting one enemy, then it also only targets one creature for Twinned Spell purposes. That just leaves "doesn't have a range of self" to satisfy, and JC's other tweet seems to suggest that "Self" is just doing the work of a point of origin, while (5-foot radius) is the range. So.... still Twinnable? If not, if "Self" is the range, then how is the target within range when the target is not your "Self"?
It's incoherent. Or, it's coherent, but doesn't work the way that the author thinks it does. Problems.
There have always been examples of targets that are outside the range of the spell. Take our old friend Fireball. If you cast a Fireball and hurl it to full range, and then it explodes and hits something just outside full range then you have hit a target outside the spell's range.This is sort of the same thing - a creature outside the spell's range becomes a target during the resolution of the spells effects.
You seem to really want to treat the word "Target" like it is a protected key word that means only exactly one thing, like "Attack Action" or "Saving Throw". Sorry. It isn't. It's a victim of the 'natural language' mode of these rules.
I've told my IT department several times, "you should hire a guy on your team that doesn't understand computers, and uses them like the rest of the company does." Why? Because they're always pushing out new features and equipment that looks great to those galaxy brained geeks on paper, but end up being useless and frustrating in the wild once the normies get our hands on it. When you're making things for players, what matters is how those players will be able to understand and enjoy that product, not your own intentions and understanding of your creation. Every DM should already know this in their heart: it doesn't matter what's in your DM binder or why or what the BBEG would have said if the players asked the right questions, it matters what it all looks like when it hits the table and players start putting their own spin on it.
This whole update just reads to me like it was written by a team that felt pretty smart about their big ideas for game balance for Tabaxi Bladesingers or something, but who didn't really understand how the SCAGtrips were commonly used, what classes get multiclassed with Blademaster, or what new and unncessary wide-reaching confusion they would be introducing to general understanding of spell range and spell targets with these Booming Blade-centered rulings.
On the contrary, CC, I think most people are unlikely to notice the changes at all. The people who are really freaking out about this are we "galaxy brained geeks" who spend all our free time discussing the minutiae of technical language in this forum. These changes aren't going to make a difference to the "guy on your team who doesn't understand computers."
It is sure going to make a difference to your AT (or any other caster that gets into melee and has a single attack per turn) when he tries to stack BB on top of Shadowblade, and the DM says "nope, doesn't work anymore"
Someone at WOTC decided, after who knows how many years of play and who knows how many Errata, that BB and GFB were broken, and decided to "fix" them. Clearly not understanding "unexpected consequences", they nerfed BB with Warcasting and conjured Weapons into the ground, as well as Twinning and Spell Sniper/Polearm setups. There was an immediate hue and cry, an "oh oh" moment at WOTC, and Mr. Crawford started firing off tweets backing off the damage done.
Many playstyles have been destroyed in the past 24 hours, and some of them have been resurrected, but not all.
Ah, I see the problem. Nothing was "nerfed...into the ground". Wizards dared to revisit something published years ago and people began screaming like Chicken Little. If anyone clearly didn't understand, it's everyone who made a knee-jerk reaction to the errata.
You may not be able to twin them, but you can quicken them. That's still pretty good. And, boo hoo, you can't extend the range of the spell with...5 (really 4) martial weapons. It's not a broken combination of abilities, but stripping it away doesn't destroy anything, either. They can always fight with a spear.
It is far worse than you grasp.
Well, don't keep us waiting.
The various impacts have been explained many times in this thread. I am not going to waste my time re-posting them, when you easily scroll through the entire 11 plus pages.
I could scroll back through the pages, but I was hoping you had some new insights. I have already read them all. I even wrote some of them. And I confirmed my interpretations with Crawford et al. None of this is as bad as you make it out to be. Honestly, I think a lot of you are overreacting.
Booming Blade, previously, could be subject to the metamagic Twinned Spell before while Green-Flame Blade couldn't. Now, neither of them can.
Booming Blade, previously, could be used with War Caster when Green-Flame Blade couldn't. Now, they both can. This is a buff to the other.
Neither can now be used with Spell Sniper to extend their reach with a glaive/halberd, lance, pike, or whip. Only three of those (glaive, halberd, and pike) work with Polearm Master. But two more, the quarterstaff and spear, do.
So I count a nerf to one and a buff to the other; bringing them in line with each other. And then they both receive a nerf that impacts one build. And it's a boring build; if I'm being frank. It requires multiple feats, upwards of three for anyone who wants Great Weapon Master, when most campaigns don't get far enough to make that possible. Or you're *yawn* resigned to playing a variant human fighter. And I've played that character. I still have him on my account here. What made him memorable was how I roleplayed him, not the cookie-cutter nature of his abilities.
And for the Bladesinger, the archetype these cantrips (and two others) were arguably designed for, they're both solidly attractive options now. In fact, limiting their range so they cannot benefit from Spell Sniper makes sense for an archetype that predominantly does not use reach weapons. Seriously, most people just chose a rapier or, occasionally, a scimitar. And maybe they still will, but that's boring, too. The cool thing about being a Bladesinger is you don't need a lot of Dexterity when you're adding studded leather and Intelligence.
TL;DR They look more balanced and, in my opinion, more interesting than before.
Why don't you talk to the AT's out there that used Shadowblade and BB. They are totally screwed. Or any other caster that had a single attack per turn and used that as melee combat. These cantrips have been used for how many years and I have no idea how many Errata passes, and suddenly they are broken??????
I've told my IT department several times, "you should hire a guy on your team that doesn't understand computers, and uses them like the rest of the company does." Why? Because they're always pushing out new features and equipment that looks great to those galaxy brained geeks on paper, but end up being useless and frustrating in the wild once the normies get our hands on it. When you're making things for players, what matters is how those players will be able to understand and enjoy that product, not your own intentions and understanding of your creation. Every DM should already know this in their heart: it doesn't matter what's in your DM binder or why or what the BBEG would have said if the players asked the right questions, it matters what it all looks like when it hits the table and players start putting their own spin on it.
This whole update just reads to me like it was written by a team that felt pretty smart about their big ideas for game balance for Tabaxi Bladesingers or something, but who didn't really understand how the SCAGtrips were commonly used, what classes get multiclassed with Blademaster, or what new and unncessary wide-reaching confusion they would be introducing to general understanding of spell range and spell targets with these Booming Blade-centered rulings.
On the contrary, CC, I think most people are unlikely to notice the changes at all. The people who are really freaking out about this are we "galaxy brained geeks" who spend all our free time discussing the minutiae of technical language in this forum. These changes aren't going to make a difference to the "guy on your team who doesn't understand computers."
It is sure going to make a difference to your AT (or any other caster that gets into melee and has a single attack per turn) when he tries to stack BB on top of Shadowblade, and the DM says "nope, doesn't work anymore"
Responding to my claim that this won’t make a difference outside of niche use cases by saying “it’ll sure make a difference in this niche use case” is not the argument you think it is.
I've told my IT department several times, "you should hire a guy on your team that doesn't understand computers, and uses them like the rest of the company does." Why? Because they're always pushing out new features and equipment that looks great to those galaxy brained geeks on paper, but end up being useless and frustrating in the wild once the normies get our hands on it. When you're making things for players, what matters is how those players will be able to understand and enjoy that product, not your own intentions and understanding of your creation. Every DM should already know this in their heart: it doesn't matter what's in your DM binder or why or what the BBEG would have said if the players asked the right questions, it matters what it all looks like when it hits the table and players start putting their own spin on it.
This whole update just reads to me like it was written by a team that felt pretty smart about their big ideas for game balance for Tabaxi Bladesingers or something, but who didn't really understand how the SCAGtrips were commonly used, what classes get multiclassed with Blademaster, or what new and unncessary wide-reaching confusion they would be introducing to general understanding of spell range and spell targets with these Booming Blade-centered rulings.
On the contrary, CC, I think most people are unlikely to notice the changes at all. The people who are really freaking out about this are we "galaxy brained geeks" who spend all our free time discussing the minutiae of technical language in this forum. These changes aren't going to make a difference to the "guy on your team who doesn't understand computers."
It is sure going to make a difference to your AT (or any other caster that gets into melee and has a single attack per turn) when he tries to stack BB on top of Shadowblade, and the DM says "nope, doesn't work anymore"
Responding to my claim that this won’t make a difference outside of niche use cases by saying “it’ll sure make a difference in this niche use case” is not the argument you think it is.
Ummmm...hardly a niche case. Every single AT uses this combo.
TL;DR They look more balanced and, in my opinion, more interesting than before.
Why don't you talk to the AT's out there that used Shadowblade and BB. They are totally screwed. Or any other caster that had a single attack per turn and used that as melee combat. These cantrips have been used for how many years and I have no idea how many Errata passes, and suddenly they are broken??????
The difference in damage between a Shadow Blade and a rapier, damage type notwithstanding, is 1d8; or 2d8 if the spell is upcast. The spell also requires both a bonus action and concentration; both of which are already valuable to a rogue. If that's the extent of what you can do in battle, then it shows a stunning lack of imagination for a trickster.
If your ability to deal damage is all you think about, you're wasting everyone's time; your own included.
TL;DR They look more balanced and, in my opinion, more interesting than before.
Why don't you talk to the AT's out there that used Shadowblade and BB. They are totally screwed. Or any other caster that had a single attack per turn and used that as melee combat. These cantrips have been used for how many years and I have no idea how many Errata passes, and suddenly they are broken??????
The difference in damage between a Shadow Blade and a rapier, damage type notwithstanding, is 1d8; or 2d8 if the spell is upcast. The spell also requires both a bonus action and concentration; both of which are already valuable to a rogue. If that's the extent of what you can do in battle, then it shows a stunning lack of imagination for a trickster.
If your ability to deal damage is all you think about, you're wasting everyone's time; your own included.
TL;DR They look more balanced and, in my opinion, more interesting than before.
Why don't you talk to the AT's out there that used Shadowblade and BB. They are totally screwed. Or any other caster that had a single attack per turn and used that as melee combat. These cantrips have been used for how many years and I have no idea how many Errata passes, and suddenly they are broken??????
The difference in damage between a Shadow Blade and a rapier, damage type notwithstanding, is 1d8; or 2d8 if the spell is upcast. The spell also requires both a bonus action and concentration; both of which are already valuable to a rogue. If that's the extent of what you can do in battle, then it shows a stunning lack of imagination for a trickster.
If your ability to deal damage is all you think about, you're wasting everyone's time; your own included.
Ummmm...hardly a niche case. Every single AT uses this combo.
No, they don't. Hyperbole won't serve you here.
Your analysis is totally limited. First off, the Bonus Action is only for the 1st turn. After that, it is back to standard attacks and whatever Cunning Action the Rogue wants. The Conc issue is the same issue for all kinds of spell choices. This is just another tradeoff. And lastly, the Advantage on attacks in Dim Light or Darkness is massive, since that means auto- Sneak Attack. To borrow your words, your analysis shows a stunning lack of basic knowledge.
TL;DR They look more balanced and, in my opinion, more interesting than before.
Why don't you talk to the AT's out there that used Shadowblade and BB. They are totally screwed. Or any other caster that had a single attack per turn and used that as melee combat. These cantrips have been used for how many years and I have no idea how many Errata passes, and suddenly they are broken??????
The difference in damage between a Shadow Blade and a rapier, damage type notwithstanding, is 1d8; or 2d8 if the spell is upcast. The spell also requires both a bonus action and concentration; both of which are already valuable to a rogue. If that's the extent of what you can do in battle, then it shows a stunning lack of imagination for a trickster.
If your ability to deal damage is all you think about, you're wasting everyone's time; your own included.
Ummmm...hardly a niche case. Every single AT uses this combo.
No, they don't. Hyperbole won't serve you here.
Riigghhhtttt.....
Vinny, the above is a little opinion flavoring a lot of truth. Numbers don't lie. And I have an arcane trickster I made up months ago, a little forest gnome, without either Booming Blade or Shadow Blade. It's not hard to do, and it still performs admirably. Nine Hells, it did so for more than a year. It was 14 months after the launch of 5th edition before Booming Blade first saw publication. Shadow Blade was another two years after that. Players have been without that build for longer than they've had access to it. And now, officially, it's going away. Learn to deal with it.
And then there are others, more high profile characters; like Critical Role's Nott the Brave/Veth Brenatto (Sam Riegel) and Twiggy (Deborah Ann Woll). Both played, or are still playing, arcane tricksters. And both have opted not to have either spell known by their character.
You're entitled to your opinion, and you don't need to lie or exaggerate to try and make your point. People tend to lose respect for you when you do.
I'm willing to come around on agreeing that new-Booming Bladecan be War Caster-ed but can't be Twinned or Distant-ed. I had missed the sentence within the Range section of Chapter 10 which pretty plainly describes both "Self" and "Self (X-foot shape" as being called "range of self" spells. Earlier, I had assumed that "Range: Self" was a different beast than "Range: Self (X-foot shape)," and that the latter could possibly not be read to be a "range of self." That's wrong.
___________
There's a section in Chapter 10, which pretty clearly and with no ambiguity, says that whatever you understand "target" to mean, the "target" needs to be within the spell's "range." Yes, spells like Fireball show that sometimes spells have two different types of things that are a target: the target of the spell (the point you cast the Fireball at, and also sometimes the creatures/objects/areas that are then affected by the spell's effect (the creatures it burns and objects it sets on fire). I'm willing to accept that Chapter 10 target-in-range restriction doesn't prevent these "target2"-type targets from being outside the range of the spell but within the area of the spell's effect (partially because I don't believe that Chapter 10 tells you the complete truth about spell effects, just spells themselves. See e.g. Goodberry having a 24-hour magical effect created by an Instantaneous Duration spell... but I digress).
But that doesn't change the fact that for "target1", the regular old target-target of the spell, Chapter 10 gives us no ands, ifs, or buts that the target "must"be within range.
How is range defined when its a word instead of a number, what should we understand a spell to be telling us about its range and where its target must be when it shows "Range: Self" or "Self (X-foot something)"?
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
So there's two types of spells with "Range: Self": those that are targeting you, and those for which you are the point of origin. Also, while you might be tempted to read "Range: Self" as being a fundamentally different range than "Range: Self (X-foot shape)", Chapter 10 seems to be referring to spells with both these kinds of wordings as "range of self." So, we'll conflate them going forward.
But that point of origin for a range of self spell with a non-self effect? It's a "target,"by explicit definition.
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
So what do we have left? Is the caster of Booming Blade a "target" of the spell? Nah, Chapter 10 allows that a "Range: Self" (or more often, a "Range: Self (X-foot something)") spell can be picking the caster as the "point of origin," not as the "target." (so, goodbye any dreams that a Paladin on a Steed or a Ranger with a Companion might be able to extend BB to their beastie as self-target spell). But does that mean that the "target" can be the enemy within the area of effect? Nope, or at least, not alone. "the target" for such a spell is the "point of origin for an area of effect," which fits neatly within the "Range: Self" the spell provides and the target-range restriction found earlier in the chapter without requiring us to make any houserule-y compromises.
So along comes War Caster. In relevant part, it requires that the spell "must target only that creature." Well, Booming Blade may or may not target one enemy as a "target2"-type spell effect target, fine, great. But it definitely also targets a point of origin as its target1 target-within-range. But, JC thinks that Booming Blade is War Caster eligible! Okay, fine, I'll give it to him... we must be misunderstanding War Caster's language. Apparently it isn't saying that the spell "must target only that creature [and no othertargets]," the feat must be saying that the spell "must target only that creature [and no othercreatures]", but it's okay to have other non-creature targets (points, maybe even objects too!). Cool, great, sounds like a great topic for an SAC clarification, and I look forward to using War Caster to cast summoning spells like Summon Greater Demon, Entangle, Flaming Sphere, etc. etc. in the future now that he's made that ruling with the utmost care and intention.
And along comes Distant Spell. In relevant part, it requires that the spell "has a range of 5 feet or greater." Well, Booming Blade has a range of "Self (5-foot radius)", and the quoted section about self-range spells in Chapter 10 makes it plain that this is what we should understand to be "range of self" and isn't really what we mean when we're talking "ranges expressed in feet." So, toss that one out, no longer an option for Booming Blade like it was in the old days.
Twinned Spell too I guess. In relevant part, it requires that the spell "targets only one creature," so to be consistent we should borrow the same interpretation of that being "one creature [and no other creatures]" that we're using for War Caster. But, it also requires that the spell "doesn't have a range of self."
____________
So... yeah. Allowing War Caster for BB, but not Twinned Spell or Distant Spell or Spell Sniper, is.... okay, I was wrong about there being an inherent conflict with Chapter 10 and that ruling.
TL;DR They look more balanced and, in my opinion, more interesting than before.
Why don't you talk to the AT's out there that used Shadowblade and BB. They are totally screwed. Or any other caster that had a single attack per turn and used that as melee combat. These cantrips have been used for how many years and I have no idea how many Errata passes, and suddenly they are broken??????
The difference in damage between a Shadow Blade and a rapier, damage type notwithstanding, is 1d8; or 2d8 if the spell is upcast. The spell also requires both a bonus action and concentration; both of which are already valuable to a rogue. If that's the extent of what you can do in battle, then it shows a stunning lack of imagination for a trickster.
If your ability to deal damage is all you think about, you're wasting everyone's time; your own included.
Ummmm...hardly a niche case. Every single AT uses this combo.
No, they don't. Hyperbole won't serve you here.
Riigghhhtttt.....
Vinny, the above is a little opinion flavoring a lot of truth. Numbers don't lie. And I have an arcane trickster I made up months ago, a little forest gnome, without either Booming Blade or Shadow Blade. It's not hard to do, and it still performs admirably. Nine Hells, it did so for more than a year. It was 14 months after the launch of 5th edition before Booming Blade first saw publication. Shadow Blade was another two years after that. Players have been without that build for longer than they've had access to it. And now, officially, it's going away. Learn to deal with it.
And then there are others, more high profile characters; like Critical Role's Nott the Brave/Veth Brenatto (Sam Riegel) and Twiggy (Deborah Ann Woll). Both played, or are still playing, arcane tricksters. And both have opted not to have either spell known by their character.
You're entitled to your opinion, and you don't need to lie or exaggerate to try and make your point. People tend to lose respect for you when you do.
You blow all credibility as soon as you introduce Critical Role into any conversation about RAW mechanics in 5e.
" You blow all credibility as soon as you introduce Critical Role into any conversation about RAW mechanics in 5e."
Good thing this conversation is about popular spell combinations, not a conversation on RAW mechanics. Just cause the thread title says one thing doesn't mean your directly discussing said thing.
The various impacts have been explained many times in this thread. I am not going to waste my time re-posting them, when you easily scroll through the entire 11 plus pages.
I could scroll back through the pages, but I was hoping you had some new insights. I have already read them all. I even wrote some of them. And I confirmed my interpretations with Crawford et al. None of this is as bad as you make it out to be. Honestly, I think a lot of you are overreacting.
So I count a nerf to one and a buff to the other; bringing them in line with each other. And then they both receive a nerf that impacts one build. And it's a boring build; if I'm being frank. It requires multiple feats, upwards of three for anyone who wants Great Weapon Master, when most campaigns don't get far enough to make that possible. Or you're *yawn* resigned to playing a variant human fighter. And I've played that character. I still have him on my account here. What made him memorable was how I roleplayed him, not the cookie-cutter nature of his abilities.
And for the Bladesinger, the archetype these cantrips (and two others) were arguably designed for, they're both solidly attractive options now. In fact, limiting their range so they cannot benefit from Spell Sniper makes sense for an archetype that predominantly does not use reach weapons. Seriously, most people just chose a rapier or, occasionally, a scimitar. And maybe they still will, but that's boring, too. The cool thing about being a Bladesinger is you don't need a lot of Dexterity when you're adding studded leather and Intelligence.
TL;DR
They look more balanced and, in my opinion, more interesting than before.
I've told my IT department several times, "you should hire a guy on your team that doesn't understand computers, and uses them like the rest of the company does." Why? Because they're always pushing out new features and equipment that looks great to those galaxy brained geeks on paper, but end up being useless and frustrating and breakable in the wild once the normies get our hands on it. When you're making things for players, what matters is how those players will be able to understand and enjoy that product, not your own intentions and understanding of your creation. Every DM should already know this in their heart: it doesn't matter what's in your DM binder or why or what the BBEG would have said if the players asked the right questions, it matters what it all looks like when it hits the table and players start putting their own spin on it.
This whole update just reads to me like it was written by a team that felt pretty smart about their big ideas for game balance for Tabaxi Bladesingers or something, but who didn't really understand how the SCAGtrips were commonly used, what classes get multiclassed with Bladesinger, or what new and unncessary wide-reaching confusion they would be introducing to general understanding of spell range and spell targets with these Booming Blade-centered rulings.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
How are you so certain that Booming Blade can't be Twinned now? If you accept JC's reasoning that it can still be War Castered due to only targeting one enemy, then it also only targets one creature for Twinned Spell purposes. That just leaves "doesn't have a range of self" to satisfy, and JC's other tweet seems to suggest that "Self" is just doing the work of a point of origin, while (5-foot radius) is the range. So.... still Twinnable? If not, if "Self" is the range, then how is the target within range when the target is not your "Self"?
It's incoherent. Or, it's coherent, but doesn't work the way that the author thinks it does. Problems.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
On the contrary, CC, I think most people are unlikely to notice the changes at all. The people who are really freaking out about this are we "galaxy brained geeks" who spend all our free time discussing the minutiae of technical language in this forum. These changes aren't going to make a difference to the "guy on your team who doesn't understand computers."
I think the usual point of entry into Booming Blade is thinking about how cool it would be on a Halberd. From that gateway, people start to try to optimize it by stacking on Sentinel, Cavalier, Metamagic, etc. etc.... but the basic premise of the spell is "this spell wants to be cast in situations where the enemy is tempted to move." That is not 5-foot face-to-face combat, for most monsters.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Your context is woefully limited if you think trying to optimize anything by stacking feats is "usual."
Every spell, even ones with a point of origin, still has a standard range. Fireball has a range of 150 ft.; a point of origin the spellcaster targets. But it also has an area of effect, a space around the point of origin where the spell does its thing. Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade behave similarly. The range is Self, so the spellcaster serves as the point of origin. There's nothing contradictory in Crawford's tweet. If the spell effect originates from the character's space, then the range of the spell is Self.
There have always been examples of targets that are outside the range of the spell. Take our old friend Fireball. If you cast a Fireball and hurl it to full range, and then it explodes and hits something just outside full range then you have hit a target outside the spell's range.This is sort of the same thing - a creature outside the spell's range becomes a target during the resolution of the spells effects.
You seem to really want to treat the word "Target" like it is a protected key word that means only exactly one thing, like "Attack Action" or "Saving Throw". Sorry. It isn't. It's a victim of the 'natural language' mode of these rules.
It is sure going to make a difference to your AT (or any other caster that gets into melee and has a single attack per turn) when he tries to stack BB on top of Shadowblade, and the DM says "nope, doesn't work anymore"
Why don't you talk to the AT's out there that used Shadowblade and BB. They are totally screwed. Or any other caster that had a single attack per turn and used that as melee combat. These cantrips have been used for how many years and I have no idea how many Errata passes, and suddenly they are broken??????
Responding to my claim that this won’t make a difference outside of niche use cases by saying “it’ll sure make a difference in this niche use case” is not the argument you think it is.
Ummmm...hardly a niche case. Every single AT uses this combo.
The difference in damage between a Shadow Blade and a rapier, damage type notwithstanding, is 1d8; or 2d8 if the spell is upcast. The spell also requires both a bonus action and concentration; both of which are already valuable to a rogue. If that's the extent of what you can do in battle, then it shows a stunning lack of imagination for a trickster.
If your ability to deal damage is all you think about, you're wasting everyone's time; your own included.
No, they don't. Hyperbole won't serve you here.
Riigghhhtttt.....
Your analysis is totally limited. First off, the Bonus Action is only for the 1st turn. After that, it is back to standard attacks and whatever Cunning Action the Rogue wants. The Conc issue is the same issue for all kinds of spell choices. This is just another tradeoff. And lastly, the Advantage on attacks in Dim Light or Darkness is massive, since that means auto- Sneak Attack. To borrow your words, your analysis shows a stunning lack of basic knowledge.
Vinny, the above is a little opinion flavoring a lot of truth. Numbers don't lie. And I have an arcane trickster I made up months ago, a little forest gnome, without either Booming Blade or Shadow Blade. It's not hard to do, and it still performs admirably. Nine Hells, it did so for more than a year. It was 14 months after the launch of 5th edition before Booming Blade first saw publication. Shadow Blade was another two years after that. Players have been without that build for longer than they've had access to it. And now, officially, it's going away. Learn to deal with it.
And then there are others, more high profile characters; like Critical Role's Nott the Brave/Veth Brenatto (Sam Riegel) and Twiggy (Deborah Ann Woll). Both played, or are still playing, arcane tricksters. And both have opted not to have either spell known by their character.
You're entitled to your opinion, and you don't need to lie or exaggerate to try and make your point. People tend to lose respect for you when you do.
I'm willing to come around on agreeing that new-Booming Blade can be War Caster-ed but can't be Twinned or Distant-ed. I had missed the sentence within the Range section of Chapter 10 which pretty plainly describes both "Self" and "Self (X-foot shape" as being called "range of self" spells. Earlier, I had assumed that "Range: Self" was a different beast than "Range: Self (X-foot shape)," and that the latter could possibly not be read to be a "range of self." That's wrong.
___________
There's a section in Chapter 10, which pretty clearly and with no ambiguity, says that whatever you understand "target" to mean, the "target" needs to be within the spell's "range." Yes, spells like Fireball show that sometimes spells have two different types of things that are a target: the target of the spell (the point you cast the Fireball at, and also sometimes the creatures/objects/areas that are then affected by the spell's effect (the creatures it burns and objects it sets on fire). I'm willing to accept that Chapter 10 target-in-range restriction doesn't prevent these "target2"-type targets from being outside the range of the spell but within the area of the spell's effect (partially because I don't believe that Chapter 10 tells you the complete truth about spell effects, just spells themselves. See e.g. Goodberry having a 24-hour magical effect created by an Instantaneous Duration spell... but I digress).
But that doesn't change the fact that for "target1", the regular old target-target of the spell, Chapter 10 gives us no ands, ifs, or buts that the target "must" be within range.
How is range defined when its a word instead of a number, what should we understand a spell to be telling us about its range and where its target must be when it shows "Range: Self" or "Self (X-foot something)"?
So there's two types of spells with "Range: Self": those that are targeting you, and those for which you are the point of origin. Also, while you might be tempted to read "Range: Self" as being a fundamentally different range than "Range: Self (X-foot shape)", Chapter 10 seems to be referring to spells with both these kinds of wordings as "range of self." So, we'll conflate them going forward.
But that point of origin for a range of self spell with a non-self effect? It's a "target," by explicit definition.
So what do we have left? Is the caster of Booming Blade a "target" of the spell? Nah, Chapter 10 allows that a "Range: Self" (or more often, a "Range: Self (X-foot something)") spell can be picking the caster as the "point of origin," not as the "target." (so, goodbye any dreams that a Paladin on a Steed or a Ranger with a Companion might be able to extend BB to their beastie as self-target spell). But does that mean that the "target" can be the enemy within the area of effect? Nope, or at least, not alone. "the target" for such a spell is the "point of origin for an area of effect," which fits neatly within the "Range: Self" the spell provides and the target-range restriction found earlier in the chapter without requiring us to make any houserule-y compromises.
So along comes War Caster. In relevant part, it requires that the spell "must target only that creature." Well, Booming Blade may or may not target one enemy as a "target2"-type spell effect target, fine, great. But it definitely also targets a point of origin as its target1 target-within-range. But, JC thinks that Booming Blade is War Caster eligible! Okay, fine, I'll give it to him... we must be misunderstanding War Caster's language. Apparently it isn't saying that the spell "must target only that creature [and no other targets]," the feat must be saying that the spell "must target only that creature [and no other creatures]", but it's okay to have other non-creature targets (points, maybe even objects too!). Cool, great, sounds like a great topic for an SAC clarification, and I look forward to using War Caster to cast summoning spells like Summon Greater Demon, Entangle, Flaming Sphere, etc. etc. in the future now that he's made that ruling with the utmost care and intention.
And along comes Distant Spell. In relevant part, it requires that the spell "has a range of 5 feet or greater." Well, Booming Blade has a range of "Self (5-foot radius)", and the quoted section about self-range spells in Chapter 10 makes it plain that this is what we should understand to be "range of self" and isn't really what we mean when we're talking "ranges expressed in feet." So, toss that one out, no longer an option for Booming Blade like it was in the old days.
Twinned Spell too I guess. In relevant part, it requires that the spell "targets only one creature," so to be consistent we should borrow the same interpretation of that being "one creature [and no other creatures]" that we're using for War Caster. But, it also requires that the spell "doesn't have a range of self."
____________
So... yeah. Allowing War Caster for BB, but not Twinned Spell or Distant Spell or Spell Sniper, is.... okay, I was wrong about there being an inherent conflict with Chapter 10 and that ruling.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You blow all credibility as soon as you introduce Critical Role into any conversation about RAW mechanics in 5e.
" You blow all credibility as soon as you introduce Critical Role into any conversation about RAW mechanics in 5e."
Good thing this conversation is about popular spell combinations, not a conversation on RAW mechanics. Just cause the thread title says one thing doesn't mean your directly discussing said thing.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.