@Chicken_Champ Your dizzying intellect rivals that of even Vizzini the Sicilian. It's honestly a little impressive, but I think you're trying too hard. I had to stop reading for fear of going crosseyed.
Instead of trying to rationalize how something does or should work, based on your own preconceived notions, consider trying to understand why the advice and in-house interpretations of the rules is what it is. In other words, work backward from their conclusion; if their conclusion interests you. At your table, when you're the DM, you can always discard it if you don't like it.
EDIT: For example, spells don't have a "Target1" and a "Target2". A spell with a point of origin might let you choose that point, but that doesn't mean it's a target. A target is something to be affected, and empty space (abstraction thereof or otherwise) doesn't count. Instead of trying to prescribe your own notions, set them aside. To quote Yoda, "Unlearn what you have learned."
If Crawford's guidance says that BB/GFB can still work with War Caster, then we know his intent is that they meet all the requirements. So, all we have to do is look at those requirements and apply that to the syntax of the spell description. Fortunately, he also saw fit to elaborate. He didn't need to, but it's welcome all the same.
Some of the other spells you mentioned (Flaming Sphere, Summon Greater Demon, etc) are another matter altogether removed from this discussion. But I seem to remember we also covered them at some point. And, the short answer is, no, they cannot be subject to Twinned Spell. Because they fail to meet all the criteria.
No Vince, you're incorrect. I can't believe that I'm backing @Jounichi1983 here, but they absolutely do not lose credibility for refuting your great exaggeration of "Every single AT (Arcane Trickster) uses this combo" with multiple examples of Arcane Tricksters that do not use that combination. Giving popular and well known examples of current arcane tricksters that don't use that combo is perfectly valid to the discussion and is a perfect rebuttal to your hyperbole.
However, I disagree with them mentioning Arcane Tricksters that existed before the spells did to refute your statement, as that is nitpicky and not really valid. That's like arguing against the exaggerated statement of "everyone likes ice cream" by saying "THE ROMANS DIDN'T!" I mean, yeah, technically that is true, but is not constructive to the conversation and serves no purpose other than being a grouch that only cares about being technically correct, and not about being usefully correct.
Of course it's bad game design for totally different features to have the same name!
Yes, one feature clearly bears no resemblance whatsoever to the other.
It's fine.
They of course bear resemblance, but in about the same amount that Extra Attack resembles Thirsting Blade. They're very similar features, and Thirsting Blade is actually closer to Extra Attack than the Bladesinger's Extra Attack is. If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack, IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Of course it's bad game design for totally different features to have the same name!
Yes, one feature clearly bears no resemblance whatsoever to the other.
It's fine.
They of course bear resemblance, but in about the same amount that Extra Attack resembles Thirsting Blade. They're very similar features, and Thirsting Blade is actually closer to Extra Attack than the Bladesinger's Extra Attack is. If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack, IMO.
You're ignoring the very significant point that Thirsting Blade is an Eldritch Invocation, not a general feature of the class (or even of a subclass).
Of course it's bad game design for totally different features to have the same name!
Yes, one feature clearly bears no resemblance whatsoever to the other.
It's fine.
They of course bear resemblance, but in about the same amount that Extra Attack resembles Thirsting Blade. They're very similar features, and Thirsting Blade is actually closer to Extra Attack than the Bladesinger's Extra Attack is. If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack, IMO.
You're ignoring the very significant point that Thirsting Blade is an Eldritch Invocation, not a general feature of the class (or even of a subclass).
Why is that a "very significant point?" Does the source of where they get the feature matter in this regard? I don't think it does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
However, I disagree with them mentioning Arcane Tricksters that existed before the spells did to refute your statement, as that is nitpicky and not really valid. That's like arguing against the exaggerated statement of "everyone likes ice cream" by saying "THE ROMANS DIDN'T!" I mean, yeah, technically that is true, but is not constructive to the conversation and serves no purpose other than being a grouch that only cares about being technically correct, and not about being usefully correct.
My point was more that we've been without that build for longer than we've been with it, but I see your meaning. It was a little disingenuous of me, and that's my bad. That said...
There is a legend of Nero enjoying sorbet made from crushed mountain ice mixed with honey and wine. And other cultures have their own legends, as well. I think the earliest one is out of China in the 3rd century BCE. Heck, we owe the existence of beer to the Egyptians. (Which makes Mulhorand a region I want to see revisited.)
Of course it's bad game design for totally different features to have the same name!
Yes, one feature clearly bears no resemblance whatsoever to the other.
It's fine.
They of course bear resemblance, but in about the same amount that Extra Attack resembles Thirsting Blade. They're very similar features, and Thirsting Blade is actually closer to Extra Attack than the Bladesinger's Extra Attack is. If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack, IMO.
You're ignoring the very significant point that Thirsting Blade is an Eldritch Invocation, not a general feature of the class (or even of a subclass).
Why is that a "very significant point?" Does the source of where they get the feature matter in this regard? I don't think it does.
It absolutely matters. Eldritch Invocations represent unique, magical powers that are intrinsically linked to the warlock's study of arcane lore. Naming such a magical power "Extra Attack" would be very stupid. It would suck the life and flavor out of what's supposed to be a dark, magical thing.
You say "If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack," but you're ignoring the reason Thirsting Blade is different enough. That reason is that it's an Eldritch Invocation. It is explicitly a magical gift. The bladesinger's Extra Attack feature is a consequence of martial training, just like the Extra Attack of every other class that gets the feature.
I agree that there is merit to point out that these spells and combining them are not necessary to have a good time playing an Arcane Trickster, or even being effective in combat. It is not often to find someone willing to admit that they are at fault, especially online. I appreciate that. And, with that being said. . .
Nero eating sorbet made of crushed mountain ice with honey and wine is an interesting tidbit that I had not been aware of before, but that fact does not refute my statement. I stated "ice cream" which is definitely not "sorbet made of crushed mountain ice with honey and wine." I'm glad that we can both be jocundly captious. ;)
It absolutely matters. Eldritch Invocations represent unique, magical powers that are intrinsically linked to the warlock's study of arcane lore. Naming such a magical power "Extra Attack" would be very stupid. It would suck the life and flavor out of what's supposed to be a dark, magical thing.
You say "If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack," but you're ignoring the reason Thirsting Blade is different enough. That reason is that it's an Eldritch Invocation. It is explicitly a magical gift. The bladesinger's Extra Attack feature is a consequence of martial training, just like the Extra Attack of every other class that gets the feature.
And the Bladesinger's new Extra Attack is a unique, magical power that is intrinsically linked to the wizard's ability to blend magic and attacks. So, if I understand you correctly, only warlocks are allowed to have unique, thematic names for very similar features tweaked slightly to differentiate them from the base ability. The Bladesinger being able to attack two times on their turn is definitely due martial training, but not them being able to cast a spell in place of one of the attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It absolutely matters. Eldritch Invocations represent unique, magical powers that are intrinsically linked to the warlock's study of arcane lore. Naming such a magical power "Extra Attack" would be very stupid. It would suck the life and flavor out of what's supposed to be a dark, magical thing.
You say "If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack," but you're ignoring the reason Thirsting Blade is different enough. That reason is that it's an Eldritch Invocation. It is explicitly a magical gift. The bladesinger's Extra Attack feature is a consequence of martial training, just like the Extra Attack of every other class that gets the feature.
And the Bladesinger's new Extra Attack is a unique, magical power that is intrinsically linked to the wizard's ability to blend magic and attacks. So, if I understand you correctly, only warlocks are allowed to have unique, thematic names for very similar features tweaked slightly to differentiate them from the base ability. The Bladesinger being able to attack two times on their turn is definitely due martial training, but not them being able to cast a spell in place of one of the attacks.
The bladesinger's "new" Extra Attack hasn't even been published yet. I'm not interested in talking about it.
Of course it's bad game design for totally different features to have the same name! If every single class in the game was named "The Hero Class," "The Ranger," or "Rumplestilskin," I think the community would be quite upset and furious at that, as it would be confusing. Different features should have different names, because otherwise, there is no way to differentiate them.
No less than five classes have a Spellcasting feature at 1st level. Two more get it at level 2. Two more can get it through archetypes at level 3.
I guess they're all badly designed, too.
No, as spellcasting actually has a good reason for having the same name; the fact that it scales with multiclassing. I think it would make sense for them to have different names, as they are different enough to warrant it, but for the sake of simplicity for multiclassing, I think it is okay for them to have the same name.
Abilities that work the exact same way (Ability Score Improvement, the original Extra Attack, Evasion, etc) should have the same name. Abilities that work similarly, but differently, should have different names (Tortle's Claws and Aarakocra's Talons, Pact Magic and Spellcasting, Ki Points and Sorcery Points).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The bladesinger's "new" Extra Attack hasn't even been published yet. I'm not interested in talking about it.
The book that Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade are being changed in hasn't been published yet, but you seem to be talking in a thread named "Booming Blade Changes in Tasha's".
Saga, I agree with you 90% of the time, and your posts are typically more eloquent and less fallacious than the average poster's, but I find it a bit disingenuous to say "I refuse to discuss this one thing that is not yet published in a thread about another thing that is not yet published."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The bladesinger's "new" Extra Attack hasn't even been published yet. I'm not interested in talking about it.
The book that Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade are being changed in hasn't been published yet, but you seem to be talking in a thread named "Booming Blade Changes in Tasha's".
Saga, I agree with you 90% of the time, and your posts are typically more eloquent and less fallacious than the average poster's, but I find it a bit disingenuous to say "I refuse to discuss this one thing that is not yet published in a thread about another thing that is not yet published."
But the conversation we're having isn't actually about the Booming Blade changes in Tasha's, so that doesn't feel super relevant to me. We're already off-topic, so it likewise feels a bit disingenuous to raise that original topic as a point here :p
My point is that Thirsting Blade is fundamentally different from (without loss of generality) the ranger's Extra Attack in a way that the bladesinger's Extra Attack is not. The conversation about bladesinger Extra Attack changes in Tasha's is simply not the conversation I'm having. My opinion there is that it's a weird and unnecessary thing to shoehorn into Extra Attack, but that's not relevant to the distinction between the Extra Attack features that we have right now and Thirsting Blade.
[EDIT] And, I should add, it seems very likely that we're simply having different conversations, which is something that happens quite often in thirteen-page threads where people only get the most recent half of any given sub-discussion. I'm sorry if we've just been talking past each other!
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).
Are you saying that the new BB is a line or a cone or implying that Ch 10 says something other than what is on the page?
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).
Are you saying that the new BB is a line or a cone or implying that Ch 10 says something other than what is on the page?
Its a quote from Crawford
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
It absolutely matters. Eldritch Invocations represent unique, magical powers that are intrinsically linked to the warlock's study of arcane lore. Naming such a magical power "Extra Attack" would be very stupid. It would suck the life and flavor out of what's supposed to be a dark, magical thing.
You say "If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack," but you're ignoring the reason Thirsting Blade is different enough. That reason is that it's an Eldritch Invocation. It is explicitly a magical gift. The bladesinger's Extra Attack feature is a consequence of martial training, just like the Extra Attack of every other class that gets the feature.
And the Bladesinger's new Extra Attack is a unique, magical power that is intrinsically linked to the wizard's ability to blend magic and attacks. So, if I understand you correctly, only warlocks are allowed to have unique, thematic names for very similar features tweaked slightly to differentiate them from the base ability. The Bladesinger being able to attack two times on their turn is definitely due martial training, but not them being able to cast a spell in place of one of the attacks.
The bladesinger's "new" Extra Attack hasn't even been published yet. I'm not interested in talking about it.
Actually it has...the Errata for Sword Coast Adventurers Guide came out with the information:
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).
Are you saying that the new BB is a line or a cone or implying that Ch 10 says something other than what is on the page?
Its a quote from Crawford
The part originally in blue is text really printed in Ch 10 that doesn’t say what Chicken_Champ needs it to say to make his argument.
"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."
Weird, your right. This doesn't fall under either category, your not the target, nor are you the origin for a cone/line.
I say you are not the target, as you will find a hard time getting a DM that states "If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends" also applies to the caster. Notice it says singular "target" and not "targets", so there is only one target.
I imagine this was supposed to be the origin part, however they read over the cone/line part. This isn't new either, many Self spells don't use either cone nor line, see for example, Thunderwave. This leads me to believe that it was supposed to read something like "Spells that create cones, lines and other areas 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."
The new changes aren't supported by the rules, and I kind of doubt the Self (5 ft) was implemented to mess with anything. I think the devs just thought Self (5 ft) was more descriptive than 5 ft. In other words for flavor reasons, you imbue booming energy (making you the point of origin) into your weapon, attacking someone within 5 feet. Same thing applies to the other spells that were changed.
The whole target within 5 ft in the description & weapon worth at least 1 sp, those definitely were to mess with synergies though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
The problem is that neither Booming Blade nor Green-Flame Blade make sense with a strict, harshly enforced five-foot range limitation. Especially when the Sword Coast book GOES OUT OF ITS WAY to say that some Bladesinging traditions make use of the whip, i.e. the thing everybody carps about Bladesingers for using.
The spell, from an in-world sense, imbues one's weapon with arcane power. You can imbue your halberd with a magical green flame that burns your target, swing it at the orc stomping on your kneecaps and it works just fine. Swing that exact same halberd, with the exact same magical imbuement, at the orc's shield brother behind him, ten feet out...and the fire just kinda falls off? It disappears without cause or reason simply because the weapon's business end is a little further away from you than a smaller weapon's would be?
It simply makes zero sense. And while I understand this is the Rules and Game Mechanics subforum, where RAW is king and "fluff" is a dirty word, the spells being as restrictive and dispermissive as they are breaks immersion and verisimilitude, often badly. My table has never enforced the obnoxious range restriction rules when using the Blade cantrips no matter who was the DM at the time, and it has never mattered. Yeah, it means the elven assassin rogue Castlevania's critters with a flaming whip from ten feet without having to 'pay' for it by taking a dozen feats or burning an entire level 20 sorcerer's stock of metamagic in one fight. Oh well? It's far from the most busted thing one can do with a cantrip.
I just don't understand why Wizards is so hell-bent on eliminating any sort of reach with these things, and killing as many interactions as they can. Blugh.
The problem is that neither Booming Blade nor Green-Flame Blade make sense with a strict, harshly enforced five-foot range limitation. Especially when the Sword Coast book GOES OUT OF ITS WAY to say that some Bladesinging traditions make use of the whip, i.e. the thing everybody carps about Bladesingers for using.
The spell, from an in-world sense, imbues one's weapon with arcane power. You can imbue your halberd with a magical green flame that burns your target, swing it at the orc stomping on your kneecaps and it works just fine. Swing that exact same halberd, with the exact same magical imbuement, at the orc's shield brother behind him, ten feet out...and the fire just kinda falls off? It disappears without cause or reason simply because the weapon's business end is a little further away from you than a smaller weapon's would be?
It simply makes zero sense. And while I understand this is the Rules and Game Mechanics subforum, where RAW is king and "fluff" is a dirty word, the spells being as restrictive and dispermissive as they are breaks immersion and verisimilitude, often badly. My table has never enforced the obnoxious range restriction rules when using the Blade cantrips no matter who was the DM at the time, and it has never mattered. Yeah, it means the elven assassin rogue Castlevania's critters with a flaming whip from ten feet without having to 'pay' for it by taking a dozen feats or burning an entire level 20 sorcerer's stock of metamagic in one fight. Oh well? It's far from the most busted thing one can do with a cantrip.
I just don't understand why Wizards is so hell-bent on eliminating any sort of reach with these things, and killing as many interactions as they can. Blugh.
For what it's worth, I don't actually think the change prevents Spell Sniper from working with these cantrips. It still has a range of 5 feet, and it still calls for you to make an attack roll. The "Self" origin confuses the issue, but I don't believe it changes the spell in a way that invalidates Spell Sniper.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Chicken_Champ
Your dizzying intellect rivals that of even Vizzini the Sicilian. It's honestly a little impressive, but I think you're trying too hard. I had to stop reading for fear of going crosseyed.
Instead of trying to rationalize how something does or should work, based on your own preconceived notions, consider trying to understand why the advice and in-house interpretations of the rules is what it is. In other words, work backward from their conclusion; if their conclusion interests you. At your table, when you're the DM, you can always discard it if you don't like it.
EDIT:
For example, spells don't have a "Target1" and a "Target2". A spell with a point of origin might let you choose that point, but that doesn't mean it's a target. A target is something to be affected, and empty space (abstraction thereof or otherwise) doesn't count. Instead of trying to prescribe your own notions, set them aside. To quote Yoda, "Unlearn what you have learned."
If Crawford's guidance says that BB/GFB can still work with War Caster, then we know his intent is that they meet all the requirements. So, all we have to do is look at those requirements and apply that to the syntax of the spell description. Fortunately, he also saw fit to elaborate. He didn't need to, but it's welcome all the same.
Some of the other spells you mentioned (Flaming Sphere, Summon Greater Demon, etc) are another matter altogether removed from this discussion. But I seem to remember we also covered them at some point. And, the short answer is, no, they cannot be subject to Twinned Spell. Because they fail to meet all the criteria.
No Vince, you're incorrect. I can't believe that I'm backing @Jounichi1983 here, but they absolutely do not lose credibility for refuting your great exaggeration of "Every single AT (Arcane Trickster) uses this combo" with multiple examples of Arcane Tricksters that do not use that combination. Giving popular and well known examples of current arcane tricksters that don't use that combo is perfectly valid to the discussion and is a perfect rebuttal to your hyperbole.
However, I disagree with them mentioning Arcane Tricksters that existed before the spells did to refute your statement, as that is nitpicky and not really valid. That's like arguing against the exaggerated statement of "everyone likes ice cream" by saying "THE ROMANS DIDN'T!" I mean, yeah, technically that is true, but is not constructive to the conversation and serves no purpose other than being a grouch that only cares about being technically correct, and not about being usefully correct.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They of course bear resemblance, but in about the same amount that Extra Attack resembles Thirsting Blade. They're very similar features, and Thirsting Blade is actually closer to Extra Attack than the Bladesinger's Extra Attack is. If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack, IMO.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You're ignoring the very significant point that Thirsting Blade is an Eldritch Invocation, not a general feature of the class (or even of a subclass).
Why is that a "very significant point?" Does the source of where they get the feature matter in this regard? I don't think it does.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
My point was more that we've been without that build for longer than we've been with it, but I see your meaning. It was a little disingenuous of me, and that's my bad. That said...
There is a legend of Nero enjoying sorbet made from crushed mountain ice mixed with honey and wine. And other cultures have their own legends, as well. I think the earliest one is out of China in the 3rd century BCE. Heck, we owe the existence of beer to the Egyptians. (Which makes Mulhorand a region I want to see revisited.)
It absolutely matters. Eldritch Invocations represent unique, magical powers that are intrinsically linked to the warlock's study of arcane lore. Naming such a magical power "Extra Attack" would be very stupid. It would suck the life and flavor out of what's supposed to be a dark, magical thing.
You say "If Thirsting Blade is different enough to deserve its own name to differentiate it from Extra Attack, so does the Bladesinger's Extra Attack," but you're ignoring the reason Thirsting Blade is different enough. That reason is that it's an Eldritch Invocation. It is explicitly a magical gift. The bladesinger's Extra Attack feature is a consequence of martial training, just like the Extra Attack of every other class that gets the feature.
I agree that there is merit to point out that these spells and combining them are not necessary to have a good time playing an Arcane Trickster, or even being effective in combat. It is not often to find someone willing to admit that they are at fault, especially online. I appreciate that. And, with that being said. . .
Nero eating sorbet made of crushed mountain ice with honey and wine is an interesting tidbit that I had not been aware of before, but that fact does not refute my statement. I stated "ice cream" which is definitely not "sorbet made of crushed mountain ice with honey and wine." I'm glad that we can both be jocundly captious. ;)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And the Bladesinger's new Extra Attack is a unique, magical power that is intrinsically linked to the wizard's ability to blend magic and attacks. So, if I understand you correctly, only warlocks are allowed to have unique, thematic names for very similar features tweaked slightly to differentiate them from the base ability. The Bladesinger being able to attack two times on their turn is definitely due martial training, but not them being able to cast a spell in place of one of the attacks.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The bladesinger's "new" Extra Attack hasn't even been published yet. I'm not interested in talking about it.
No, as spellcasting actually has a good reason for having the same name; the fact that it scales with multiclassing. I think it would make sense for them to have different names, as they are different enough to warrant it, but for the sake of simplicity for multiclassing, I think it is okay for them to have the same name.
Abilities that work the exact same way (Ability Score Improvement, the original Extra Attack, Evasion, etc) should have the same name. Abilities that work similarly, but differently, should have different names (Tortle's Claws and Aarakocra's Talons, Pact Magic and Spellcasting, Ki Points and Sorcery Points).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The book that Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade are being changed in hasn't been published yet, but you seem to be talking in a thread named "Booming Blade Changes in Tasha's".
Saga, I agree with you 90% of the time, and your posts are typically more eloquent and less fallacious than the average poster's, but I find it a bit disingenuous to say "I refuse to discuss this one thing that is not yet published in a thread about another thing that is not yet published."
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
But the conversation we're having isn't actually about the Booming Blade changes in Tasha's, so that doesn't feel super relevant to me. We're already off-topic, so it likewise feels a bit disingenuous to raise that original topic as a point here :p
My point is that Thirsting Blade is fundamentally different from (without loss of generality) the ranger's Extra Attack in a way that the bladesinger's Extra Attack is not. The conversation about bladesinger Extra Attack changes in Tasha's is simply not the conversation I'm having. My opinion there is that it's a weird and unnecessary thing to shoehorn into Extra Attack, but that's not relevant to the distinction between the Extra Attack features that we have right now and Thirsting Blade.
[EDIT] And, I should add, it seems very likely that we're simply having different conversations, which is something that happens quite often in thirteen-page threads where people only get the most recent half of any given sub-discussion. I'm sorry if we've just been talking past each other!
Are you saying that the new BB is a line or a cone or implying that Ch 10 says something other than what is on the page?
Its a quote from Crawford
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
Actually it has...the Errata for Sword Coast Adventurers Guide came out with the information:
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SCAG-Errata.pdf
So it is out officially.
The part originally in blue is text really printed in Ch 10 that doesn’t say what Chicken_Champ needs it to say to make his argument.
"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."
The new changes aren't supported by the rules, and I kind of doubt the Self (5 ft) was implemented to mess with anything. I think the devs just thought Self (5 ft) was more descriptive than 5 ft. In other words for flavor reasons, you imbue booming energy (making you the point of origin) into your weapon, attacking someone within 5 feet. Same thing applies to the other spells that were changed.
The whole target within 5 ft in the description & weapon worth at least 1 sp, those definitely were to mess with synergies though.
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.
The problem is that neither Booming Blade nor Green-Flame Blade make sense with a strict, harshly enforced five-foot range limitation. Especially when the Sword Coast book GOES OUT OF ITS WAY to say that some Bladesinging traditions make use of the whip, i.e. the thing everybody carps about Bladesingers for using.
The spell, from an in-world sense, imbues one's weapon with arcane power. You can imbue your halberd with a magical green flame that burns your target, swing it at the orc stomping on your kneecaps and it works just fine. Swing that exact same halberd, with the exact same magical imbuement, at the orc's shield brother behind him, ten feet out...and the fire just kinda falls off? It disappears without cause or reason simply because the weapon's business end is a little further away from you than a smaller weapon's would be?
It simply makes zero sense. And while I understand this is the Rules and Game Mechanics subforum, where RAW is king and "fluff" is a dirty word, the spells being as restrictive and dispermissive as they are breaks immersion and verisimilitude, often badly. My table has never enforced the obnoxious range restriction rules when using the Blade cantrips no matter who was the DM at the time, and it has never mattered. Yeah, it means the elven assassin rogue Castlevania's critters with a flaming whip from ten feet without having to 'pay' for it by taking a dozen feats or burning an entire level 20 sorcerer's stock of metamagic in one fight. Oh well? It's far from the most busted thing one can do with a cantrip.
I just don't understand why Wizards is so hell-bent on eliminating any sort of reach with these things, and killing as many interactions as they can. Blugh.
Please do not contact or message me.
For what it's worth, I don't actually think the change prevents Spell Sniper from working with these cantrips. It still has a range of 5 feet, and it still calls for you to make an attack roll. The "Self" origin confuses the issue, but I don't believe it changes the spell in a way that invalidates Spell Sniper.