D&D 5E Could SCAG be power creep?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Only as long as he doesn't have his third attack.

Math please? To me it looks as if War Magic is still useful at 11th level. You're basically replacing one attack with 4d8+Int damage (Greenflame Blade) or 2d8+(3d8 more on movement) (Booming Blade), which looks like a win for many EKs (e.g. Sharpshooter archers who get caught in melee). Only GWMs will definitely not want it.

 

[Giant2005]

Only GWMs will definitely not want it.

Nah they'd still want it. Against AC 18, a GWM/GWF EK inflicts 25.75 DPR with a Greatsword and 20 Str. Against that same AC they'd inflict 24.42 DPR by not using GWM and instead using Booming Blade. That damage would increase to 35.79 if the second tick of damage proc'ed. Either way, 1.33 DPR is a small price to pay for the possibility of scoring that extra damage.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

As was said by others, it's more of a series of hotfixes than legit power creep. Out of all of the classes that received new options, only one subclass was virtually rendered obsolete: the Bladelock. Everyone else either got a small boost or stayed relatively the same.

Are there some new combos? Sure, but nothing more powerful than what already exists in the PHB. Remember that all new content is only balanced against the PHB. Thus, I recommend that DMs take the AL approach (PHB+1 other source) if we start to see broken combos that require multiple splatbooks.

 

[brehobit]

The intent behind both those manouvers and PDK/Banneret is that they should be similar to the 4e Warlord. I consider PDK less of a failure in that sense since it at least makes me want to try it when I just read about it.

It actually is neat, but it's just under powered--at 3rd level you gain the ability to heal 3 people of 3 hit points 1/short rest. I mean that _can_ be huge if they are all down. But once you've done that, you're done. And most of the time, it's "eh".

I'd add the following:

• 3rd level: When a PDK reduces a target to 0 hit points, all allies within 20' of the PDK gain advantage on the next saving throw they make before the PDKs next turn starts.
• 7th level: PDK can use second wind twice per short rest.
• 10th level: PDK gains resistance to effects that cause fear.

Also, noticed a typo. The Inspiring surge should probably have the two ally effect at 18th level, not 17th.

 

[brehobit]

As was said by others, it's more of a series of hotfixes than legit power creep. Out of all of the classes that received new options, only one subclass was virtually rendered obsolete: the Bladelock. Everyone else either got a small boost or stayed relatively the same.

Why the bladelock? Do you mean because one could cast one of the new cantrips rather than take two attacks? Yeah, that does hurt a bit and I'm not sure how to fix it. Bladelock is already weak compared to the tome...

 

[Flamestrike]

It actually is neat, but it's just under powered--at 3rd level you gain the ability to heal 3 people of 3 hit points 1/short rest. I mean that _can_ be huge if they are all down. But once you've done that, you're done. And most of the time, it's "eh".

I'd add the following:

• 3rd level: When a PDK reduces a target to 0 hit points, all allies within 20' of the PDK gain advantage on the next saving throw they make before the PDKs next turn starts.
• 7th level: PDK can use second wind twice per short rest.
• 10th level: PDK gains resistance to effects that cause fear.

Also, noticed a typo. The Inspiring surge should probably have the two ally effect at 18th level, not 17th.

The annoying thing about it is that you cant combine it with BM. If you could be a PDK + BM then it would be great.

Martial Adept just doesnt do enough to justify it. If only that feat granted 2 dice, or could be selected multiple times.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's really only the cantrips that are power creep; but good power creep, the kind that just needs to be a one-time thing and now you're done, because the issue is now fixed.

Yep. They were needed to fill a hole in the rules (the ability to gain a character-level scaling weapon attack, the same way you can already gain a character-level scaling ranged spell attack with a feat), they help out eldritch knight, and they make the new bladesinger work.

I've never even heard of anyone deciding to turn a caster who they envisioned as a ranged blaster into a melee smacker once they heard those cantrips existed. If they were actually over-powered, people would do that.

Only as long as he doesn't have his third attack.

Depends on the situation. There are times when it's still better to use the cantrip. It add extra versatility after 11th level.

Why the bladelock? Do you mean because one could cast one of the new cantrips rather than take two attacks? Yeah, that does hurt a bit and I'm not sure how to fix it. Bladelock is already weak compared to the tome...

The way I fix it is to add War Magic into the Thirsting Blade invocation, but only with cantrips that involve making a melee attack with a weapon (ie, Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade). It borders on being over-powered/imbalanced, so if that is an issue I don't recommend it. It does, however, fix the issue with bladelock being inferior at what it appears it is supposed to be best at, without serious investment and optimization.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But they say the PC's are balanced so there should be no "high end of the PHB class", correct me if I'm wrong

Whoever said this was deceiving someone--possibly themselves--or trying to sell you something (which, I suppose, could amount to the same thing). There is absolutely still a power gradient in 5e--just like there was in 4e, despite it being known as excellently balanced (or excessively balanced, depending on your point of view). Paladins, for example, are among the most baseline-powerful classes in the game, being just shy of a Fighter's damage while having much of the flexibility provided to casters, while Rangers, especially Beastmasters, are...not nearly so well-off.

It would probably be correct to say that there are no bad classes/subclasses in 5e, unless you're doing a (near-)zero combat/(almost-)pure non-combat campaign (in which case most of the 'non-magical' subclasses fall distinctly behind). But "nothing is bad" does not even slightly imply "everything is equally good."

 

[Ganymede81]

Yep. They were needed to fill a hole in the rules (the ability to gain a character-level scaling weapon attack, the same way you can already gain a character-level scaling ranged spell attack with a feat)

I think the problem is that attacks scale in power differently for different classes. One good illustration is the fighter and the rogue. The fighter, largely, scales up its attack with more attacks. The rogue, on the other hand, keeps its one attack but it becomes more and more lethal over time. These new melee cantrips don't deal with those kinds of scaling in the same way.

Even at the cost of a feat in lieu of +2 to a stat, a rogue gains so much and sacrifices so little by taking one of those cantrips.

 

[Flamestrike]

Even at the cost of a feat in lieu of +2 to a stat, a rogue gains so much and sacrifices so little by taking one of those cantrips.

Except the cantrips cant be used with TWF. Which is a big deal on a Rogue - particularly a swashbuckler.

Two chances to hit and land sneak attack each round, vs one chance to hit and land sneak attack + cantrip damage.

TWF still gives you the same or better DPR (higher hit % more than compensates for higher cantrip damage) at the cost of your bonus action. Factoring in the opportunity cost (the feat/ ASI expended) then its not really that big a deal.