OK let's get back to the subject. Is Booming Blade nerfed by the change. Maybe a little but who cares it is a rubbish cantrip anyway. It makes no logical sense creating magical energy with a stupid name which "knows" if the target is moving voluntarily or not and thus is only useful against beasts and dull monsters that have no ranged attacks. It is otherwise useful for a few edge cases such as stopping a kobold running away because 1d8 will probably kill it.
It also stomps all over the action economy by casting a spell and making a melee attack with the same action and still fails to actually do enough to be useful.
Twining it primarily twins your melee weapon attack and should therefore clearly be banned by any DM applying rules as intened anyway.
Eh the main uses of Booming Blade were the following:
1. Get some nice extra damage on your attack (mostly for people with 1 attack) such as rogues, wizards, etc. (GFB works as well) 2. Warcastor use it as a AoO 3. Destroys creatures reliant on ranged, because now they either have disadvantage for being too close or take a ton of damage for moving. 4. Combine with spell sniper, and a reach weapon and you can Booming Blade a melee attackers 10-ft away and they must move in order to attack you... ouch. 5. Combine with spells that force someone to move, such as Dissonant Whispers. (Booming blade someone, have someone cast this spell, then see #2) 6. Said twinning combo. To be fair it's pretty balanced if your a single-class sorcerer trying out some melee, uses a resource and allows you to keep up (sorcerers don't really have a melee subclass as of rn). Also GFB works for this as well. The whole twinning thing kind of falls apart with multiclassing though, cause setups like Paladin/Sorcerers are already powerful enough.
This will change obviously with the new changes. I'm fine with most of these since they usually require investment, such as a feat and add not that much damage. This change is probably not needed. Do remember that despite all the above uses, it still doesn't add that much damage.
Edit: While #2 is arguable if a creature can move, trigger AoO Booming Blade, then stop moving to not trigger the extra damage, I would say yes. Not for any RAW reason, but just because it might be a bit too powerful otherwise. Giving the creature a choice makes it balanced in my opinion. Also requires a feat.
Eh the main uses of Booming Blade were the following:
1. Get some nice extra damage on your attack (mostly for people with 1 attack) such as rogues, wizards, etc. (GFB works as well) 2. Warcastor use it as a AoO (big ouch there, although most DMs will let the creature just stop moving and not trigger BB) 3. Destroys creatures reliant on ranged, because now they either have disadvantage for being too close or take a ton of damage for moving. 4. Combine with spell sniper, and a reach weapon and you can Booming Blade a melee attackers 10-ft away and they must move in order to attack you... ouch. 5. Combine with spells that force someone to move, such as Dissonant Whispers. (Booming blade someone, have someone cast this spell, then see #2) 6. Said twinning combo. To be fair it's pretty balanced if your a single-class sorcerer trying out some melee, uses a resource and allows you to keep up (sorcerers don't really have a melee subclass as of rn). Also GFB works for this as well. The whole twinning thing kind of falls apart with multiclassing though, cause setups like Paladin/Sorcerers are already powerful enough.
This will change obviously with the new changes. I'm fine with most of these since they usually require investment, such as a feat and add not that much damage. This change is probably not needed. Do remember that despite all the above uses, it still doesn't add that much damage.
Just pointing out, yes, in the sense that they might be forced to move in a way that provokes an OA, and with Warcaster you can make that OA with Booming Blade. no, in the sense that forced movement from Dissonant Whispers is not "willingly moves" as required by Booming Blade for bonus damage. The precise definition of "willingly move" has seen some hot debate in the past, about whether "willingly move" was intended to just be a different way of phrasing what we know about OA-provoking movement (mostly yes whenever you move using your movement, no whenever you are pushed/pulled/falling/dragged). I think that's a poor reading, and that "willingly move" means movement you choose to make (so not pushed/pulled/falling/dragged, but also no charmed/compelled movement).
Please don't start another fight with me over Merriam-Webster definitions of "willingly," just putting it out there that comboing BB with other compelled movement abilities is fraught for DMs and players disagreeing about the mechanics, if you're seeking to do anything other than set up OAs.
Eh the main uses of Booming Blade were the following:
1. Get some nice extra damage on your attack (mostly for people with 1 attack) such as rogues, wizards, etc. (GFB works as well) 2. Warcastor use it as a AoO (big ouch there, although most DMs will let the creature just stop moving and not trigger BB) 3. Destroys creatures reliant on ranged, because now they either have disadvantage for being too close or take a ton of damage for moving. 4. Combine with spell sniper, and a reach weapon and you can Booming Blade a melee attackers 10-ft away and they must move in order to attack you... ouch. 5. Combine with spells that force someone to move, such as Dissonant Whispers. (Booming blade someone, have someone cast this spell, then see #2) 6. Said twinning combo. To be fair it's pretty balanced if your a single-class sorcerer trying out some melee, uses a resource and allows you to keep up (sorcerers don't really have a melee subclass as of rn). Also GFB works for this as well. The whole twinning thing kind of falls apart with multiclassing though, cause setups like Paladin/Sorcerers are already powerful enough.
This will change obviously with the new changes. I'm fine with most of these since they usually require investment, such as a feat and add not that much damage. This change is probably not needed. Do remember that despite all the above uses, it still doesn't add that much damage.
Just pointing out, yes, in the sense that they might be forced to move in a way that provokes an OA, and with Warcaster you can make that OA with Booming Blade. no, in the sense that forced movement from Dissonant Whispers is not "willingly moves" as required by Booming Blade for bonus damage. The precise definition of "willingly move" has seen some hot debate in the past, about whether "willingly move" was intended to just be a different way of phrasing what we know about OA-provoking movement (mostly yes whenever you move using your movement, no whenever you are pushed/pulled/falling/dragged). I think that's a poor reading, and that "willingly move" means movement you choose to make (so not pushed/pulled/falling/dragged, but also no charmed/compelled movement).
Please don't start another fight with me over Merriam-Webster definitions of "willingly," just putting it out there that comboing BB with other compelled movement abilities is fraught for DMs and players disagreeing about the mechanics, if you're seeking to do anything other than set up OAs.
Agreed with the asterix that while I agree with your definition of willingly and recognize the RAW here, it leads to such...ugh, gamist resolutions.
Then again, I house rule many other spells for my table so that my players (esp. new ones) don't feel like their creativity is discouraged by video-gamey feel of arbitrary constraints of spellcasting.
Edit: While #2 is arguable if a creature can move, trigger AoO Booming Blade, then stop moving to not trigger the extra damage, I would say yes. Not for any RAW reason, but just because it might be a bit too powerful otherwise. Giving the creature a choice makes it balanced in my opinion. Also requires a feat.
At my table it depends on the enemy. There are some (many, actually if not "most") who have no business knowing what will happen if they continue to move so it makes zero sense for them to suddenly stop moving in order to avoid getting hit by BB secondary effect. If they get hit twice or three times in a row, maybe they can deduce that movement = bad.
Some notes, probably not very important but I thought I would comment on it.
"Range: Self (5-foot radius)", I guess that's what we were expecting. Your the point of origin for a booming attack that targets a creature within 5 feet. The target is the person whom you hit with the spell
"make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you", so if you increase the range of the spell, this line prevents it from... actually increasing the range. Normally it would say something like "one creature within range". Rest in peace, distant spell / spell sniper.. Also note this is a errata to SCAG itself, so it applies to both SCAG and probably Tasha should it appear in there too.
Moving to Green Flame Blade, "On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it." The second creature hit with the green flame does not appear to be a target, the target is the first creature who you actually strike. I believe this because the second creature only needs to be 5 feet away from the first creature, not from you. Therefore, the second creature can be outside of your reach, thus making it impossible for them to be the target. So it has to be the first poor guy.
Lightning Lure & Sword Burst have also been altered to prevent usage of Spell Sniper / Distant Spell.sa
Not related to this thread at all, but it seems WOTC is experimenting again with abilities that rely on proficiency bonus, in this case, Bladesong. Technically this is a direct buff, same with the part right after about Extra Attack. Nice.
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.
If the range is "self (5-foot radius)" does that make the "target" also "self" as long as that self remains within range (5-feet of the caster)? Because certainly the rest of the text of the spell describes when you melee hit a creature, then goes on to say what happens to the target of the spell. According to certain interpretations here, the target must be "self (5-foot radius)," and therefore not the creature hit by the melee attack. Does that mean that the effects affecting the "target" actually happen to the caster instead?
By the way, i know how ridiculous the argument that I propose is.
So, result of these changes is that both BB and GFB (plus the other two in that pdf) are not eligible for Twinning by a sorcerer, since they have a range of self. Nor for Spell Sniper because double a range of zero is still zero.
The target of the spell is not yourself (possibly the primary target is your point in space being the only other thing in range), but the creature you attack is also referred to as "the target" so it is a target. I'm satisfied you could say BB "only targets one creature" and that would not be false. I feel GFB still has the possibility of two target creatures, so that may still affect some other rule interactions.
I would argue that BB is still eligible for a War Caster's AOO, but only as the enemy moves out of a 5ft range (you should receive an AoO chance at that moment even when carrying only a reach weapon, as they have moved beyond range of your inherent unarmed attack reach). There is no way to use this spell now to hit something at 10ft with a reach weapon as the area of valid targets for the spell is locked at 5ft from self.
"If the range is "self (5-foot radius)" does that make the "target" also "self" as long as that self remains within range (5-feet of the caster)?"
The target also is "self" only when there is no parenthesis next to the self range. What's the difference between Self (5ft) and 5ft? Your the point of origin in one, and in the other there is no point of origin. When will that ever matter? Basically never.
Edit: Correction, in the other just 5ft, it means the point of origin may or may not be yourself. Not that there is no point of origin. While in Self (5ft), it means it's100% you. Note that in either case, you are not the target unless your stabbing yourself. Or Fireball-ing yourself.
"If the range is "self (5-foot radius)" does that make the "target" also "self" as long as that self remains within range (5-feet of the caster)?"
The target also is "self" only when there is no parenthesis next to the self range. What's the difference between Self (5ft) and 5ft? Your the point of origin in one, and in the other there is no point of origin. When will that ever matter? Basically never.
I’m honestly not sure exactly what rules your referring to. In the spell casting chapter of the PHB, the text only mentions self being the target or the point of origin for cone and line spells. It doesn’t really explain a general case of range self with a distance in parentheses that is not a cone or a line.
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."
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.
At this point, I think I can honestly say that I have absolutely no idea what the heck WotC is doing, and I don’t entirely know if they do either. Like, I get that Booming Blade was potentially abusable, sure. But for a player to really take it to the extent where I felt things needed to be addressed from a DM’s perspective... That required taking multiple feats geared toward caster enhancement, and a chassis comfortable standing in melee combat. That’s a massive multi-tier investment by a player to support what is essentially a gimmick that is at least partially dependent on the actions taken by enemies, and the entire thing could be negatively impacted by an NPC casting Vicious Mockery. Either I am really missing something, or this errata seems like the level of overcompensation one suspects of the guys who drive those massive duelies with the spiked hubcaps, the extra loud stack exhausts, and the rubber truck nuts dangling from the trailer hitch. Like, c’mon, really? Is it actually that small necessary?? Really?!? 🤨 If it was at least a change to clear up ambiguity caused by the language I could understand, but this seems to be at best a lateral shift on that front. So... why...?
The fact that 5 feet is mentioned not only in the range header, but ALSO in the spell description, may well serve to prevent the spell from being Spell Snipered to 10 feet. Like, range Self already did that, but this is like they put one in the head and one in the chest for good measure 😂
This alteration strikes me as very similar to many of the Sage Advice/erratas targeted at Twinned Spell over the years, in that Wizards is attempting to come up with lawyerese to eliminate behaviors they do not want while trying to squirm of out being seen as heavy-handed. The company clearly does not approve of utilizing Blade cantrips with any form of reach weapon, nor of utilizing Metamagic on them in any meaningful way. They are not willing to let DMs flex on this, which strikes me as very strange given that in almost all cases, an ordinary two-hit multiattack is a better use of one's action than a Blade cantrip.
We've all seen the janky modifier-stacking builds, the Hexblade nonsense, and the like. I question whether any of it is truly so obnoxious as to require a drastic and mostly undesirable change to the spells, even in AL where that shit is prevalent? How many tables has anyone here sat at where allowing the range of a Blade cantrip to match the range of the weapon it's used with truly broken things? Our rogue in Grave of Saints uses Green Flame Blade with a whip all the time and it's never felt particularly egregious. Or even egregious at all, really. Even a player dumping everything they can into maximizing Booming Blade isn't doing anything that couldn't be so much worse if the same player devoted the same resources to building a quintuple-Smite Sorcabardinlock that uses every daily resources it has to deal twelve hundred damage in one attack through sheer, overwhelming rules cheese.
Suppose the only question I truly have on this sharp restriction of these spells is...why?
I have a very, very hard time with the why question every time an SAC ruling comes out (why pick THIS particular ambiguity to emphasize, or combo to pick apart?), but the “why” for Errata is usually something being printed ACTUALLY incorrectly, or ACTUALLY not working as intended.
That... that just really doesn’t seem to be the case for these SCAGtrip changes. Unless there are some sort of new character options elsewhere in Tashas that would have elevated SCAGtrips to new heights, this really just feels petty, like Wizards just didn’t want anyone to use these cantrips in anything but the most conventional manner with few or no class or feat interactions. Which.... why???
I'm seriously disappointed about these changes. These were cool and great cantrips, no brainers for Arcane Tricksters and now for Bladesingers, but they were nerfed hard, and for no good reason. Is it seriously OP to allow squishy bladesinger that isn't allowed a two-handed weapon, dual wielding, or shield to attack from 10 feet away with a whip with a cantrip specifically designed for that subclass, taking a feat and cantrip slot in order to do so? I really do not think it is. WotC did not need to nerf these this much.
This proves further that WotC hates the SCAG, as almost everything they put in it has been invalidated by a later product (Undying Warlocks by Undead Warlocks), reprinted due to being one of the few better-designed parts of the book (Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogues, Storm Magic Sorcerers), or significantly nerfed in a reprint for absolutely no good reason (Bladesinger with Bladesong, SCAGtrips), or completely ignored and never mentioned again, as if it doesn't exist (Battlerager, Purple Dragon Knight, Oath of the Crown).
(Side note: I honestly have no idea why they haven't reprinted the Arcana Domain Cleric yet. It's one of the best designed subclasses in the book, and is a personal favorite of mine and many others in the community.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
🤷♂️ I houseruled the ranges of the two blade cantrips to be “Self” and treat them as buffs to the caster’s single attack, and that the range of the attack matches the reach of the weapon used. It never seemed intuitive to do it any other way IMO.
I have a very, very hard time with the why question every time an SAC ruling comes out (why pick THIS particular ambiguity to emphasize, or combo to pick apart?), but the “why” for Errata is usually something being printed ACTUALLY incorrectly, or ACTUALLY not working as intended.
That... that just really doesn’t seem to be the case for these SCAGtrip changes. Unless there are some sort of new character options elsewhere in Tashas that would have elevated SCAGtrips to new heights, this really just feels petty, like Wizards just didn’t want anyone to use these cantrips in anything but the most conventional manner with few or no class or feat interactions. Which.... why???
Because, and I know a lot of players and DMs have a hard time reconciling this fact, feats are optional rules. Doubling the range of a spell that already has a range of 30, 60, or 120 ft isn't that big a deal. For some, it means increased flexibility. For others, it's borderline pointless because I can't think of a single battle map that's 45 squares across. But doubling the range of a spell that was clearly intended to work within a range of 5 ft? (Seriously, there are several smite spells with similar language and restrictions.)
It's after 1am here, so I'm just going to leave it at this: the new version of the spell is, basically, non-exploitable by anyone. Its reach cannot be extended beyond the normal melee range for exploitation by martial spellcasters. It technically cannot be twinned, but it can be quickened so sorcerers can still accomplish the same effect (albeit at a more expensive opportunity cost). Paladins and rangers cannot share it with their mounts and beast companions; which could have proven problematic. And it's a cantrip, minor magic, that in all likelihood should not be open to any sort of exploitation. Booming Blade and GFB already blow most cantrips out of the water in terms of pure damage. This isn't going to break the game.
OK let's get back to the subject. Is Booming Blade nerfed by the change. Maybe a little but who cares it is a rubbish cantrip anyway. It makes no logical sense creating magical energy with a stupid name which "knows" if the target is moving voluntarily or not and thus is only useful against beasts and dull monsters that have no ranged attacks. It is otherwise useful for a few edge cases such as stopping a kobold running away because 1d8 will probably kill it.
It also stomps all over the action economy by casting a spell and making a melee attack with the same action and still fails to actually do enough to be useful.
Twining it primarily twins your melee weapon attack and should therefore clearly be banned by any DM applying rules as intened anyway.
#Opendnd
Eh the main uses of Booming Blade were the following:
1. Get some nice extra damage on your attack (mostly for people with 1 attack) such as rogues, wizards, etc. (GFB works as well)
2. Warcastor use it as a AoO
3. Destroys creatures reliant on ranged, because now they either have disadvantage for being too close or take a ton of damage for moving.
4. Combine with spell sniper, and a reach weapon and you can Booming Blade a melee attackers 10-ft away and they must move in order to attack you... ouch.
5. Combine with spells that force someone to move, such as Dissonant Whispers. (Booming blade someone, have someone cast this spell, then see #2)
6. Said twinning combo. To be fair it's pretty balanced if your a single-class sorcerer trying out some melee, uses a resource and allows you to keep up (sorcerers don't really have a melee subclass as of rn). Also GFB works for this as well. The whole twinning thing kind of falls apart with multiclassing though, cause setups like Paladin/Sorcerers are already powerful enough.
This will change obviously with the new changes. I'm fine with most of these since they usually require investment, such as a feat and add not that much damage. This change is probably not needed. Do remember that despite all the above uses, it still doesn't add that much damage.
Edit: While #2 is arguable if a creature can move, trigger AoO Booming Blade, then stop moving to not trigger the extra damage, I would say yes. Not for any RAW reason, but just because it might be a bit too powerful otherwise. Giving the creature a choice makes it balanced in my opinion. Also requires a feat.
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.
Just pointing out, yes, in the sense that they might be forced to move in a way that provokes an OA, and with Warcaster you can make that OA with Booming Blade. no, in the sense that forced movement from Dissonant Whispers is not "willingly moves" as required by Booming Blade for bonus damage. The precise definition of "willingly move" has seen some hot debate in the past, about whether "willingly move" was intended to just be a different way of phrasing what we know about OA-provoking movement (mostly yes whenever you move using your movement, no whenever you are pushed/pulled/falling/dragged). I think that's a poor reading, and that "willingly move" means movement you choose to make (so not pushed/pulled/falling/dragged, but also no charmed/compelled movement).
Please don't start another fight with me over Merriam-Webster definitions of "willingly," just putting it out there that comboing BB with other compelled movement abilities is fraught for DMs and players disagreeing about the mechanics, if you're seeking to do anything other than set up OAs.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Agreed with the asterix that while I agree with your definition of willingly and recognize the RAW here, it leads to such...ugh, gamist resolutions.
Then again, I house rule many other spells for my table so that my players (esp. new ones) don't feel like their creativity is discouraged by video-gamey feel of arbitrary constraints of spellcasting.
At my table it depends on the enemy. There are some (many, actually if not "most") who have no business knowing what will happen if they continue to move so it makes zero sense for them to suddenly stop moving in order to avoid getting hit by BB secondary effect. If they get hit twice or three times in a row, maybe they can deduce that movement = bad.
So, we have the new wording. And straight from the horse's mouth.
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SCAG-Errata.pdf
Some notes, probably not very important but I thought I would comment on it.
"Range: Self (5-foot radius)", I guess that's what we were expecting. Your the point of origin for a booming attack that targets a creature within 5 feet. The target is the person whom you hit with the spell
"make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you", so if you increase the range of the spell, this line prevents it from... actually increasing the range. Normally it would say something like "one creature within range". Rest in peace, distant spell / spell sniper.. Also note this is a errata to SCAG itself, so it applies to both SCAG and probably Tasha should it appear in there too.
Moving to Green Flame Blade, "On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it." The second creature hit with the green flame does not appear to be a target, the target is the first creature who you actually strike. I believe this because the second creature only needs to be 5 feet away from the first creature, not from you. Therefore, the second creature can be outside of your reach, thus making it impossible for them to be the target. So it has to be the first poor guy.
Lightning Lure & Sword Burst have also been altered to prevent usage of Spell Sniper / Distant Spell.sa
Not related to this thread at all, but it seems WOTC is experimenting again with abilities that rely on proficiency bonus, in this case, Bladesong. Technically this is a direct buff, same with the part right after about Extra Attack. Nice.
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.
If the range is "self (5-foot radius)" does that make the "target" also "self" as long as that self remains within range (5-feet of the caster)? Because certainly the rest of the text of the spell describes when you melee hit a creature, then goes on to say what happens to the target of the spell. According to certain interpretations here, the target must be "self (5-foot radius)," and therefore not the creature hit by the melee attack. Does that mean that the effects affecting the "target" actually happen to the caster instead?
By the way, i know how ridiculous the argument that I propose is.
So, result of these changes is that both BB and GFB (plus the other two in that pdf) are not eligible for Twinning by a sorcerer, since they have a range of self. Nor for Spell Sniper because double a range of zero is still zero.
The target of the spell is not yourself (possibly the primary target is your point in space being the only other thing in range), but the creature you attack is also referred to as "the target" so it is a target. I'm satisfied you could say BB "only targets one creature" and that would not be false. I feel GFB still has the possibility of two target creatures, so that may still affect some other rule interactions.
I would argue that BB is still eligible for a War Caster's AOO, but only as the enemy moves out of a 5ft range (you should receive an AoO chance at that moment even when carrying only a reach weapon, as they have moved beyond range of your inherent unarmed attack reach). There is no way to use this spell now to hit something at 10ft with a reach weapon as the area of valid targets for the spell is locked at 5ft from self.
That is a view that isn’t necessarily held by every member of this forum. I think Chicken_Champ would disagree.
"If the range is "self (5-foot radius)" does that make the "target" also "self" as long as that self remains within range (5-feet of the caster)?"
The target also is "self" only when there is no parenthesis next to the self range. What's the difference between Self (5ft) and 5ft? Your the point of origin in one, and in the other there is no point of origin. When will that ever matter? Basically never.
Edit: Correction, in the other just 5ft, it means the point of origin may or may not be yourself. Not that there is no point of origin. While in Self (5ft), it means it's100% you. Note that in either case, you are not the target unless your stabbing yourself. Or Fireball-ing yourself.
Don't ask why WoTC thought this was a good idea.
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.
I’m honestly not sure exactly what rules your referring to. In the spell casting chapter of the PHB, the text only mentions self being the target or the point of origin for cone and line spells. It doesn’t really explain a general case of range self with a distance in parentheses that is not a cone or a line.
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."
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.
At this point, I think I can honestly say that I have absolutely no idea what the heck WotC is doing, and I don’t entirely know if they do either. Like, I get that Booming Blade was potentially abusable, sure. But for a player to really take it to the extent where I felt things needed to be addressed from a DM’s perspective... That required taking multiple feats geared toward caster enhancement, and a chassis comfortable standing in melee combat. That’s a massive multi-tier investment by a player to support what is essentially a gimmick that is at least partially dependent on the actions taken by enemies, and the entire thing could be negatively impacted by an NPC casting Vicious Mockery. Either I am really missing something, or this errata seems like the level of overcompensation one suspects of the guys who drive those massive duelies with the spiked hubcaps, the extra loud stack exhausts, and the rubber truck nuts dangling from the trailer hitch. Like, c’mon, really? Is it actually that
smallnecessary?? Really?!? 🤨 If it was at least a change to clear up ambiguity caused by the language I could understand, but this seems to be at best a lateral shift on that front. So... why...?Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The fact that 5 feet is mentioned not only in the range header, but ALSO in the spell description, may well serve to prevent the spell from being Spell Snipered to 10 feet. Like, range Self already did that, but this is like they put one in the head and one in the chest for good measure 😂
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This alteration strikes me as very similar to many of the Sage Advice/erratas targeted at Twinned Spell over the years, in that Wizards is attempting to come up with lawyerese to eliminate behaviors they do not want while trying to squirm of out being seen as heavy-handed. The company clearly does not approve of utilizing Blade cantrips with any form of reach weapon, nor of utilizing Metamagic on them in any meaningful way. They are not willing to let DMs flex on this, which strikes me as very strange given that in almost all cases, an ordinary two-hit multiattack is a better use of one's action than a Blade cantrip.
We've all seen the janky modifier-stacking builds, the Hexblade nonsense, and the like. I question whether any of it is truly so obnoxious as to require a drastic and mostly undesirable change to the spells, even in AL where that shit is prevalent? How many tables has anyone here sat at where allowing the range of a Blade cantrip to match the range of the weapon it's used with truly broken things? Our rogue in Grave of Saints uses Green Flame Blade with a whip all the time and it's never felt particularly egregious. Or even egregious at all, really. Even a player dumping everything they can into maximizing Booming Blade isn't doing anything that couldn't be so much worse if the same player devoted the same resources to building a quintuple-Smite Sorcabardinlock that uses every daily resources it has to deal twelve hundred damage in one attack through sheer, overwhelming rules cheese.
Suppose the only question I truly have on this sharp restriction of these spells is...why?
Please do not contact or message me.
I have a very, very hard time with the why question every time an SAC ruling comes out (why pick THIS particular ambiguity to emphasize, or combo to pick apart?), but the “why” for Errata is usually something being printed ACTUALLY incorrectly, or ACTUALLY not working as intended.
That... that just really doesn’t seem to be the case for these SCAGtrip changes. Unless there are some sort of new character options elsewhere in Tashas that would have elevated SCAGtrips to new heights, this really just feels petty, like Wizards just didn’t want anyone to use these cantrips in anything but the most conventional manner with few or no class or feat interactions. Which.... why???
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm seriously disappointed about these changes. These were cool and great cantrips, no brainers for Arcane Tricksters and now for Bladesingers, but they were nerfed hard, and for no good reason. Is it seriously OP to allow squishy bladesinger that isn't allowed a two-handed weapon, dual wielding, or shield to attack from 10 feet away with a whip with a cantrip specifically designed for that subclass, taking a feat and cantrip slot in order to do so? I really do not think it is. WotC did not need to nerf these this much.
This proves further that WotC hates the SCAG, as almost everything they put in it has been invalidated by a later product (Undying Warlocks by Undead Warlocks), reprinted due to being one of the few better-designed parts of the book (Mastermind and Swashbuckler Rogues, Storm Magic Sorcerers), or significantly nerfed in a reprint for absolutely no good reason (Bladesinger with Bladesong, SCAGtrips), or completely ignored and never mentioned again, as if it doesn't exist (Battlerager, Purple Dragon Knight, Oath of the Crown).
(Side note: I honestly have no idea why they haven't reprinted the Arcana Domain Cleric yet. It's one of the best designed subclasses in the book, and is a personal favorite of mine and many others in the community.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
🤷♂️ I houseruled the ranges of the two blade cantrips to be “Self” and treat them as buffs to the caster’s single attack, and that the range of the attack matches the reach of the weapon used. It never seemed intuitive to do it any other way IMO.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Because, and I know a lot of players and DMs have a hard time reconciling this fact, feats are optional rules. Doubling the range of a spell that already has a range of 30, 60, or 120 ft isn't that big a deal. For some, it means increased flexibility. For others, it's borderline pointless because I can't think of a single battle map that's 45 squares across. But doubling the range of a spell that was clearly intended to work within a range of 5 ft? (Seriously, there are several smite spells with similar language and restrictions.)
It's after 1am here, so I'm just going to leave it at this: the new version of the spell is, basically, non-exploitable by anyone. Its reach cannot be extended beyond the normal melee range for exploitation by martial spellcasters. It technically cannot be twinned, but it can be quickened so sorcerers can still accomplish the same effect (albeit at a more expensive opportunity cost). Paladins and rangers cannot share it with their mounts and beast companions; which could have proven problematic. And it's a cantrip, minor magic, that in all likelihood should not be open to any sort of exploitation. Booming Blade and GFB already blow most cantrips out of the water in terms of pure damage. This isn't going to break the game.
So no more shadow blade with BB then?
"Not all those who wander are lost"