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.)
I completely agree that WOTC clearly does not have a clue what they are doing.
But, the only people that are really hit hard by these changes are:
a. Sorcerers who wanted to twin the cantrip.
b. A niche gish who was using a Reach weapon, who also had Spell Sniper as a feat. I am not sure that taking that feat was ever worth the ASI just to use BB and GFB at 10 feet. Bladesingers and AT's were not typically going to sacrifice an ASI for Spell Sniper. That being said, I do have a Halfling Rogue AT who took 1 level of Fighter to use a Whip. But from a cost/benefit perspective, I just could not justify that Feat.
As far as I can tell, Warcaster is not affected by these changes. And lastly, given that it sure seems that most of Tasha's is going to be garbage, at least at my table, much of Tasha's will be ignored.
🤷♂️ 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.
Given that a change to “self” is what Tasha’s is doing, we have no reason to believe that the entire spell won’t work with reach weapons right out of the gate.
The only consequence of the change we can be sure of is that there can be no argument that it’s not twinnable now. For all we know, the intent of the change was to remove Spell Sniper as a requirement for using the spell with reach.
🤷♂️ 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.
Given that a change to “self” is what Tasha’s is doing, we have no reason to believe that the entire spell won’t work with reach weapons right out of the gate.
The only consequence of the change we can be sure of is that there can be no argument that it’s not twinnable now. For all we know, the intent of the change was to remove Spell Sniper as a requirement for using the spell with reach.
But they also added "within 5 feet" to the description.
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you.
If I wanted to be cheeky I'd say that sure, you can use a reach weapon as long as you hit a target within 5 feet but we both know this is not what people mean :D
So the first thing I saw when opening the errata PDF was:
[NEW] Extra Attack (p. 142). The following text has been added after the first sentence: “Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”
What in the flying **** is happening with WotC
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I already linked to it on the previous page, but thanks for posting it again. That makes this a little easier.
I'm awake now, so I have some thoughts on this errata.
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.
The spell doesn't technically target the caster. Rather, they serve as the point of origin for a spell with a limited range. Technically, there is an AoE radius, but the spell can only ever have one target. It might even still be subject to the sorcerer's Metamagic (Twinned Spell). This is Brave New World territory. That said, despite technically having an AoE, it does still qualify with War Caster. It meets all the requirements. Remember that War Caster does not need an attack roll. Hold Person, Magic Missile (so long as all the missiles only target the provoking party), and [spell]Ray of Frost[spell] all work with it. So long as there's only one target (and I believe there is), the combination works.
Spell Sniper won't work because the spell now has a point of origin. A little disappointing for some, to be sure, but I never much cared for reach weapon cheese. It's certainly better than giving the spell a Range/Area of just "Self". That would, probably, be a pendulum swing too far in the other direction. A bard/paladin multiclasseed with a sorcerer/warlock (or even just dabbling with Magic Initiate) would be able to share the cantrip with a mount summoned via Find Steed. And a bugbear with a glaive, halberd, or whip would be able to cast it with a range of 15 ft with no feat investment.
All we know for certain is it can no longer be twinned via sorcerery points. Which, actually brings it in line with Green-Flame Blade. So now the two behave consistently. That may not be a bad thing.
Let's take a moment and talk about the implications of Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
- Can't cast it with a spell focus, although it's hard to imagine this was ever all that much of a situation before - Can't cast it with many spell-conjured weapons - It probably wasn't designed to prevent most magic weapons, even though many of them don't have a stated value. A +1 longsword is still a longsword after all. - Can't use it with natural weapons - Can't use it with some (?) improvised weapons
So the first thing I saw when opening the errata PDF was:
[NEW] Extra Attack (p. 142). The following text has been added after the first sentence: “Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”
Let's take a moment and talk about the implications of Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
- Can't cast it with a spell focus, although it's hard to imagine this was ever all that much of a situation before - Can't cast it with many spell-conjured weapons - It probably wasn't designed to prevent most magic weapons, even though many of them don't have a stated value. A +1 longsword is still a longsword after all. - Can't use it with natural weapons - Can't use it with some (?) improvised weapons
It doesn't need a spellcasting focus to be cast, but some spell foci can serve as the material component. Staves can serve as a quarterstaff. And there's no prohibition on ATs, Bladesingers, EKs dual wielding.
I think that Extra Attack errata is just the Bladesingers, not the regular one martial classes get...
... but if so, they’ve now named two wildly different abilities the same thing, which is preposterously poor foresight.
Look at the page numbers. It is definitely specific to Bladesingers. And I don't think it's that big a deal from a definition standpoint. You still have to meet the same requirements (taking the attack action) but now once you have done that, the Bladesinger can cast a cantrip as a follow-up instead of swinging again.
That isn't to say I think it's necessary but whatever. Munchkins gonna munchkin.
"Let's give Wizards a completely unnecessary buff to an already strong subclass. Let's also make it do the one thing that constantly confuses new players, make it applicable only for this subclass, and name it as the same feature other classes get which do not do this."
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't think Bladesingers were a very strong class, because it doesn't give you enough melee features to actually tempt you into changing your playstyle. All it's really good for is (once per short rest) boosting your AC to unreasonable heights. Giving them EK/Profane Soul's version of a bonus attack after a cantrip would have helped, but what they did went past that.... which, good! But, they've unnecessarily created a new Unarmored Defense situation, where we now have two identically named features with very significant differences in how they work, which are quite likely to show up on the same character for any Bladesinger/EKs out there, which will cause a lot of confusion about how many attacks are in an Attack Action, and.... just, big oof, there's literally no reason that the Bladesinger's Extra Attack couldn't have been renamed "Additional Strike" or something thesaurus-y to keep it distinct on a character sheet.
There's plenty of balance considerations you could have differing opinions on... should this have been a new special action, distinct from the Attack action? Is nesting an action-cantrip into an Action, rather than enabling it as a Bonus too strong? Should the cantrip have been limited to a spell attack cantrip, or is it working as intended to allow all cantrips? Reasonable minds can differ on those, I'm not going to accuse anyone of incompetence for coming down on one side or the other on any of that... but the naming issue is just an unforced error, it's just not defensible design/editing. It isn't "no big deal," it's shocking carelessness, and shows a blatant lack of foresight and thoughtfulness with the process. Whoever the lead designer is on this book (internet is being rather cagey about whether it's JC) should not be involved in (or at least, not responsible for heading) any future products in this or any other edition.
Just so that we're on the same page, which two identically-named features are you referring to here:
But, they've unnecessarily created a new Unarmored Defense situation, where we now have two identically named features with very significant differences in how they work,
Do you mean extra attack? Because I don't see how it is two features. It's a feature that works one way as a general rule and a different way as a specific rule for Bladesingers. It's still the same feature.
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes, at different levels. There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.
Just so that we're on the same page, which two identically-named features are you referring to here:
But, they've unnecessarily created a new Unarmored Defense situation, where we now have two identically named features with very significant differences in how they work,
Do you mean extra attack? Because I don't see how it is two features. It's a feature that works one way as a general rule and a different way as a specific rule for Bladesingers. It's still the same feature.
That’s just 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. It’s still going to confuse the heck out of people who already don’t understand the difference between number of attacks and number of actions. I cannot even begin to count the number of times that I have had to explain that Extra Attack does not mean a character can make a weapon attack and cast a spell in the same turn. Now there’s this.... In the immortal words of Charley Brown- “Good Grief.”
Oh god, I haven't even thought of that.... "can my Eldritch Knight cast a spell and make an attack if I have Extra Attack" just got a lot harder for a new player or DM to find a simple answer to with a search. Why did they set this pit trap???
I completely agree that WOTC clearly does not have a clue what they are doing.
But, the only people that are really hit hard by these changes are:
a. Sorcerers who wanted to twin the cantrip.
b. A niche gish who was using a Reach weapon, who also had Spell Sniper as a feat. I am not sure that taking that feat was ever worth the ASI just to use BB and GFB at 10 feet. Bladesingers and AT's were not typically going to sacrifice an ASI for Spell Sniper. That being said, I do have a Halfling Rogue AT who took 1 level of Fighter to use a Whip. But from a cost/benefit perspective, I just could not justify that Feat.
As far as I can tell, Warcaster is not affected by these changes. And lastly, given that it sure seems that most of Tasha's is going to be garbage, at least at my table, much of Tasha's will be ignored.
c. Arcane Tricksters who enjoy combining it with shadow blade for easy self-provided sneak attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
ah...the M requirement of a weapon worth 1 SP. I see that now. Yup, that is total idiocy on the part of WOTC. That makes zero sense.
Given that a change to “self” is what Tasha’s is doing, we have no reason to believe that the entire spell won’t work with reach weapons right out of the gate.
The only consequence of the change we can be sure of is that there can be no argument that it’s not twinnable now. For all we know, the intent of the change was to remove Spell Sniper as a requirement for using the spell with reach.
But they also added "within 5 feet" to the description.
If I wanted to be cheeky I'd say that sure, you can use a reach weapon as long as you hit a target within 5 feet but we both know this is not what people mean :D
Where was the final updated description published published?
The SCAG errata:
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SCAG-Errata.pdf
So the first thing I saw when opening the errata PDF was:
What in the flying **** is happening with WotC
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I already linked to it on the previous page, but thanks for posting it again. That makes this a little easier.
I'm awake now, so I have some thoughts on this errata.
The spell doesn't technically target the caster. Rather, they serve as the point of origin for a spell with a limited range. Technically, there is an AoE radius, but the spell can only ever have one target. It might even still be subject to the sorcerer's Metamagic (Twinned Spell). This is Brave New World territory. That said, despite technically having an AoE, it does still qualify with War Caster. It meets all the requirements. Remember that War Caster does not need an attack roll. Hold Person, Magic Missile (so long as all the missiles only target the provoking party), and [spell]Ray of Frost[spell] all work with it. So long as there's only one target (and I believe there is), the combination works.
Spell Sniper won't work because the spell now has a point of origin. A little disappointing for some, to be sure, but I never much cared for reach weapon cheese. It's certainly better than giving the spell a Range/Area of just "Self". That would, probably, be a pendulum swing too far in the other direction. A bard/paladin multiclasseed with a sorcerer/warlock (or even just dabbling with Magic Initiate) would be able to share the cantrip with a mount summoned via Find Steed. And a bugbear with a glaive, halberd, or whip would be able to cast it with a range of 15 ft with no feat investment.
All we know for certain is it can no longer be twinned via sorcerery points. Which, actually brings it in line with Green-Flame Blade. So now the two behave consistently. That may not be a bad thing.
Let's take a moment and talk about the implications of Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
- Can't cast it with a spell focus, although it's hard to imagine this was ever all that much of a situation before
- Can't cast it with many spell-conjured weapons
- It probably wasn't designed to prevent most magic weapons, even though many of them don't have a stated value. A +1 longsword is still a longsword after all.
- Can't use it with natural weapons
- Can't use it with some (?) improvised weapons
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think that Extra Attack errata is just the Bladesingers, not the regular one martial classes get...
... but if so, they’ve now named two wildly different abilities the same thing, which is preposterously poor foresight.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Meth is a hell of a drug.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It doesn't need a spellcasting focus to be cast, but some spell foci can serve as the material component. Staves can serve as a quarterstaff. And there's no prohibition on ATs, Bladesingers, EKs dual wielding.
But true enough for everything else.
Look at the page numbers. It is definitely specific to Bladesingers. And I don't think it's that big a deal from a definition standpoint. You still have to meet the same requirements (taking the attack action) but now once you have done that, the Bladesinger can cast a cantrip as a follow-up instead of swinging again.
That isn't to say I think it's necessary but whatever. Munchkins gonna munchkin.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
"Let's give Wizards a completely unnecessary buff to an already strong subclass. Let's also make it do the one thing that constantly confuses new players, make it applicable only for this subclass, and name it as the same feature other classes get which do not do this."
Bad Idea™
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't think Bladesingers were a very strong class, because it doesn't give you enough melee features to actually tempt you into changing your playstyle. All it's really good for is (once per short rest) boosting your AC to unreasonable heights. Giving them EK/Profane Soul's version of a bonus attack after a cantrip would have helped, but what they did went past that.... which, good! But, they've unnecessarily created a new Unarmored Defense situation, where we now have two identically named features with very significant differences in how they work, which are quite likely to show up on the same character for any Bladesinger/EKs out there, which will cause a lot of confusion about how many attacks are in an Attack Action, and.... just, big oof, there's literally no reason that the Bladesinger's Extra Attack couldn't have been renamed "Additional Strike" or something thesaurus-y to keep it distinct on a character sheet.
There's plenty of balance considerations you could have differing opinions on... should this have been a new special action, distinct from the Attack action? Is nesting an action-cantrip into an Action, rather than enabling it as a Bonus too strong? Should the cantrip have been limited to a spell attack cantrip, or is it working as intended to allow all cantrips? Reasonable minds can differ on those, I'm not going to accuse anyone of incompetence for coming down on one side or the other on any of that... but the naming issue is just an unforced error, it's just not defensible design/editing. It isn't "no big deal," it's shocking carelessness, and shows a blatant lack of foresight and thoughtfulness with the process. Whoever the lead designer is on this book (internet is being rather cagey about whether it's JC) should not be involved in (or at least, not responsible for heading) any future products in this or any other edition.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Just so that we're on the same page, which two identically-named features are you referring to here:
Do you mean extra attack? Because I don't see how it is two features. It's a feature that works one way as a general rule and a different way as a specific rule for Bladesingers. It's still the same feature.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There's a reason that Rage and Sneak Attack have different names. Because, they're different features, which work in different ways, which you get from different classes,
at different levels.There's no reason for Extra Attack and Extra Attack to both be named Extra Attack, now that they do different things, and have almost nothing in common.dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That’s just 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. It’s still going to confuse the heck out of people who already don’t understand the difference between number of attacks and number of actions. I cannot even begin to count the number of times that I have had to explain that Extra Attack does not mean a character can make a weapon attack and cast a spell in the same turn. Now there’s this.... In the immortal words of Charley Brown- “Good Grief.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh god, I haven't even thought of that.... "can my Eldritch Knight cast a spell and make an attack if I have Extra Attack" just got a lot harder for a new player or DM to find a simple answer to with a search. Why did they set this pit trap???
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.